(1.) This appeal by the sole appellant is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 27.04.1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge VII in Sessions Trial No 310 of 1980/37 of 1987 by Which the appellant, having been found guilty under Sections 302 and 449 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), has been given a singular life sentence.
(2.) This case has been running in our list for quite sometime but we found that no one was appearing for the appellant. Before the earlier Bench also, it appears no one appeared for the appellant. Accordingly, by order dated 30.09,2011, we appointed Miss Priya Gupta as amicus curiae. She has ably assisted us in the matter.
(3.) The prosecution case is based upon the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Mahavir Yadav @ Mahavir Mahto, son of Jagan Mahto (PW 15), in respect of the occurrence which took place at about 10 pm on 10/11.3.1980. It is against the appellant and one Rajendra Yadav. The fardbayan is recorded at the Police Station where the informant and his sons have gone with the dead body of his other son Jai Nath. It is alleged that the informant and his sons, having had dinner, were preparing to go to sleep when the appellant and Rajendra Yadav, the other accused alongwith six other unknown persons, entered the baithak abusing and shouting to kill all the persons. Upon hearing this, the informant (PW 15) and his son Mitan Yadav (PW 5) and Musafir Yadav (PW 9) ran into the courtyard and climbed on the roof of the house and, thus, managed to escape. Jai Nath Yadav, the other son of the informant st.ed to run in another direction but was intercepted by the appellant who gave him Saif (spear like weapon) injury. Thereafter, the accused persons are alleged to have entered into the house, assaulted the ladies and stated that where have all the male members disappeared. They then lifted two boxes which contained papers and left. Jai Nath Yadav, informant's son, who had received injuries, went out of the house, collapsed and died. The reason for this occurrence is said to have been that Brahamdeo, the appellant had asked for some papers and on the papers not being given, had threatened to liquidate the family.