JAG NARAIN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, along with his son Om Prakash, was tried for the offence of murder of Prabhakar Kumar Martin in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 1985, in the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah. The trial Court convicted Om Prakash under Section 302, IPC and the appellant Jag Narain was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34/109, IPC. Both of them appealed to the High Court against their conviction but without any success. They then applied to this Court for special leave to file an appeal against the judgment of the High Court. This Court granted leave to appellant Jag Narain only and dismissed the special leave petition of Om Prakash.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 5-9-1984 at about 8.30 a.m. Om Prakash was seen by Shailendra going on a cycle with high speed. As his nephew was playing in the lane and could have been hit by the cycle, he scolded Om Prakash by telling him not to drive cycle so speedily in the lane. Om Prakash replied by saying that the lane did not belong to Shailendra's father. That led to an exchange of words between Om Prakash and Shailendra. While leaving that place, Om Prakash threatened Shailendra that he would teach him a lesson. Within few minutes, Om Prakash returned with a gun followed by his father appellant Jag Narain and his younger brother Chhote. By that time Prabhakar and Regina had also come in the lane and they saw Om Prakash coming towards them with a gun. Regina tried to prevent him from coming near by holding him and his gun but she was given a push and, therefore, she fell down. Shailendra also tried to prevent Om Prakash from firing his gun and it is at that point of time that the appellant exhorted Om Prakash not merely to look at their faces but to fire his gun. Thereupon, Om Prakash fired a shot which hit Prabhakar. Prabhakar died before he could reach the hospital. All the three accused were charge-sheeted but as it was noticed that the third accused Chhote was aged about 15 years only, his case was separated and the trial proceeded against the appellant and Om Prakash only.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution had mainly relied upon the evidence of five eye-witnesses-PW-1 Raj Kumar, PW-3 Martin Sarfin, PW-4 Regina Martin, PW-5 Shailendra Kumar Martin and PW-6 Agness Joseph. PW-6 did not support the prosecution and she was declared a hostile witness and was also permitted to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. The trial Court believed the evidence of other four witnesses and convicted Om Prakash and the appellant as stated above.