ANWAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant was charged for an offence under Section 302 IPC for murdering Chhotey Lal Yadav, son of Hari Charan Yadav on 24.10.2000 at about 3.30 p.m. between villages Marpa and Chargarha near the field of Ram Dulary Kharwar. The Appellant was further charged for an offence under Section 506 IPC for having threatened to murder Rajendra Yadav, Behari Yadav, Bedeshi Yadav and Deena Nath, when they made an attempt to catch him after committing the murder of Chhotey Lal Yadav, by saying that if anybody made an attempt to apprehend him, he would murder him or sustain injuries. Charge was framed on 20.09.2001.

(2.) The prosecution case is that, a First Information Report of the incident was lodged on 24.10.2000 at about 8.30 p.m. at Police Station Manchi by Rajendra Yadav son of Hari Charan Yadav, alleging that on 24.10.2000 at about 3.30 p.m., his brother Chhotey Lal, his wife and his younger brother Rajgiri left home to prepare periphery (mend) for the irrigation of paddy crop. Anwar, resident of village Marpa and Chargarha, who was sitting in the field of Arhar crop near the field of Ram Dulary Kharwar between villages Marpa and Chargarha, fired one round of shot at his brother Chhotey Lal from his licensed single barrel gun of 12 bore. The prosecution sought to prove their case through Smt. Fulwa Devi, widow of deceased Chhotey Lal Yadav, P.W. 2, his brother Rajgiri Yadav, P.W. 3 and two other witnesses, namely, Rajendra Yadav, P.W. 1 and Bihari Yadav, P.W. 4., who reached the spot soon thereafter. Dr. R.C. Yadav was examined as P.W. 5, as he had prepared the postmortem report. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) Raj Kumar was examined as P.W. 6. The reports of Serologist and Ballistic Expert were taken on record. The accused was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure In his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, he had stated that he would lead evidence by examining the witnesses, yet he chose not to do so.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the death was homicidal and caused by gun shot injuries. The statement on behalf of the accused that it was not he, but some Naxalites who had caused the death of the deceased, was not accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. The report of the Ballistic expert was relied upon. The learned Sessions Judge held that though no definite opinion has been given by the ballistic report, but the expert had expressed possibility that the three pellets recovered from the body of the deceased might have been fired by the licensed gun which was recovered. Considering the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 23.11.2002 was pleased to convict the Appellant of the offences under Section 302 IPC and after hearing the Appellant on the point of sentence, awarded the sentence of life imprisonment. Apart from that, the learned Sessions Judge imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and on failure to pay the fine, to further undergo imprisonment of six months.