FEKAN PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by sole appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.9.1993 and 24.9.1993 respectively passed by 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 1992 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and R.I. for three years under Section 27 of Arms Act. Both the sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of prosecution in short is that on 5.5.1991 at about, 1.00 p.m. Umesh kumar, the elder brother of informant Dinseh Kumar (PW 7), was standing at his 'darwaja' all of a sudden appellant armed with a country-made rifle came there and opened fire from his rifle causing injury on the abdomen of Umesh Kumar who after receiving injury fell down. The Mohalla people took Umesh Kumar to hospital. On the same day prior to firing earlier also, the appellant had abused the brother of informant in presence of some guests who had come from out side to see the brother of informant for the purpose of marriage. About the genesis of occurrence, it is stated that the informant and his family members wanted to purchase a land situated on the back side of their house and the appellant wanted to earn brokerage in that deal which was being opposed by the informant and his brother. After the occurrence informant lodged a written report (Ext. 3) to the police station and a case under Sections 307/34, I.P.C. and Section 27 of Arms Act was registered against the appellant. Later on when the brother of informant succumbed to injury received by him at the hands of appellant Section 302, I.P.C. was added to the F.I.R. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 302, I.P.C. and 27 of Arms Act against the appellant. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 27 of Arms Act were framed. The appellant denied the charges. The case of appellant as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is total denial of his participation in the occurrence and his false implication in this case. After trial, the appellant was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced as indicated above.

(3.) Altogether ten witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution. Dinesh Kumar (PW 7) is the informant. Dr. Sohan Prasad Choudhary (PW 3) is the doctor who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Deokant Prasad @ Manoj Kumar (PW 1), Udayanand (PW 2), brother-in-law of deceased, Shyam Babu Shah (PW 4) and Arjun Ram (PW 5) are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Anil Prasad Sinha (PW 9) is the I.O. Dangal Singh (PW 10) is a formal witness who had produced a sealed bottle containing a bullet which was recovered from the dead body of the deceased. Rajendra Ram (PW 8) is a witness who, on hearing the sound of firing, had come out from his house and had seen the deceased lying at his 'darwaja' with injury on his abdomen and the appellant running away from there with a country-made rifle and he had also taken the deceased to hospital. Prem Kumar (PW 6) is a witness on the inquest report (Ext.2).