MD SAIYED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 29.9.2004/30.9.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Vaishali at Hazipur in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 2003, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 374/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for his conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, S.I. for six months. For conviction under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for two months. The appellant has been sentenced R.I. for three years for conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, S.I. for one month. All sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts leading to the trial of the appellant as projected by the prosecution are as follows:- A fardbeyan of Razi Ahmad ( P.W.10) was recorded on 14.9.2002 at 11.30 P.M. in which he has stated that on 13.9.2002 at 6. P.M. in the evening, he alongwith his wife Kaushar Jahan (P.W.7) had gone to bring milk from the house of one Budhan Mian and at that time his son Rafi alias Gunni ( deceased) aged 4 and half years was sitting at the Verandah of the House. When the Informant returned back to his house, his son was found missing and a search was made in the house and nearby places but he could not be located. Some villagers also came in the meantime and helped in searching out of the boy but they could not succeed. The informant, in his fardbeyan has raised suspicion against one Syed for the reason that on 2.9.2002 Syed had some altercation with informants wife as she stopped him from watching television in her house. Syed had left informants house enhancing threat that he will take revenge from them. On the same date again Syed had come to the house of the informant, after 2-3 hours, he demanded jack fruits of informants daughters share but wife of the informant restrained him from taking away jack fruit. Syed, due to this twisted the hands of the informants wife and fractured one finger of her left hand, and she had to get it plastered. Syed was displeased with the informant as earlier he used to take settlement of informants orchard, which had been taken back from him. The informant has given his orchard on annual settlement to some other person, for the reason that Syed was not furnishing its financial account and make payment to the informant. For all these reasons, Syed had enhanced threat to the informant and he suspected that Syed and Parwez, who also used to come to the house of the Informant have committed the offence of kidnapping of his son with an intention to kill him.

(3.) MR. Ashok Jung Bahadur, Senior Counsel, representing the appellant has submitted that right from the point of recording of the fardbeyan of the informant till submission of charge-sheet, the investigation as shown in the case diary is nothing but the master craftsmanship and ingenuinity of the police Investigating Officer. Though, P.W.14 has deposed that the dead body of the deceased was recovered on the basis of confessional statement of accused but the fact is that the dead body was recovered earlier to the recording of the confessional statement. Confessional statement was ante-dated and the two named accused persons, were falsely implicated in this case giving some motive to them on the basis of some remote incidents, not witnessed by any one except P.W.7. Everything has been done at the instance of Mukhia of Gram Panchayat, Md. Asgar Alam ( P.W.5) and Md. Zahirul Haque (P.W.4), who is sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Md. Syed was falsely implicated, since he did not support them in the election for the post of Mukhia, in which P.W.5 and son of P.W.4 had contested for the post of Mukhia. Parwez was implicated because he demanded his wages from P.W.4 and P.w.10, for his work, but P.W.4 and P.W.10, being in habit of taking work from him without any payment were not willing to make payment for his work.