AJAY PARBAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.3.2004 and 1.4.2004 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2002 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution case arises out of a fardbeyan dated 9.11.2001 of informant Lilawati Devi (PW 7) given before the Officer Incharge of G.R.P. Chapra, Kutchery vide G.R.P. Kutchery P.S. Case No. 240 dated 9.11.2001 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code that the informant Lilawati Devi on 9.11.2001 along with her Nanand Urmila Devi and son Rajesh Puri had gone to Chapra to hear a religious discourse. On that date at about 2.00 P.M. she along with Urmila Devi- her Nanad and Rajesh Puri- her son were returning on foot for their house. At about 2.45. P.M. when they reached near at temple situated at South Eastern Railway Cabin of Sadha Dhala then her co-villager namely, the appellant gave a dagger blow to her son Rajesh Puri upon his back as a result thereof his son Rajesh Puri fell down and thereafter, the appellant gave Chura blow twice on him which resulted into profuse bleeding. The appellant tried to escape through railway track. After hearing the cry of the informant and others the persons of the locality and villagers chased and the accused/appellant was caught by police on the railway platform but son of the informant died. The previous enmity of the informant with Ajay Prabat- the appellant related to a case of assault was the reason of the present occurrence.

(3.) After institution of the case the investigation was started and the police found the case to be true under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted Chargesheet accordingly. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed and explained to the appellant. He pleaded his innocence and claimed to be tried.