KAYAMUDDIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above-named three appellants feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 4.5.1995 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah, in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 1994, have preferred these appeals. Appellant Kayamuddin Khan has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the remaining two appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have also been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

(2.) In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 28.4.1994 at about 7.45 p.m. appellant Julphikar Khan arrived at the house of the informant and took his brother Firoz Khan (deceased) with him. Immediately thereafter, the informant heard hulla of "Bachao-Bachao", whereupon he rushed to the place from where the hulla was coming. On reaching the place of occurrence, he saw that appellant Kayamuddin Khan was assaulting Firoz Khan with tangi (axe) and other two appellants namely, Julphikar Khan and Sabir Khan had caught his hands. He further stated that on hearing India, witnesses arrived there and had seen the occurrence. The injured was thereafter taken to the Sadar Hospital where the doctor declared him dead. Thereafter, the dead body was taken to Arrah Mofassil Police Station where on the basis of the statement of the informant, First Information Report was drawn up. The Police on the basis of the aforesaid statement, registered a regular case and also visited the place of occurrence, seized certain materials and ultimately having found a prima facie case, submitted charge-sheet. The Chief Judicial Magistrate on receipt of the charge-sheet, took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to che Court of Sessions, calling upon the accused-persons to face trial.

(3.) The defence of the appellants as would appear from their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses was total denial of the allegations. It was also suggested that they were falsely implicated, because of the previous enmity.