MURTAZA KASAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been filed by the sole appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6th June, 1989 passed by Sessions Judge, Begusarai whereby the sole appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life in connection with a case as originally resulted vide Balia P.S. Case No. 175 of 1985. 1. THE prosecution case has resulted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Naresh Prasad Sah (deceased) which was recorded by S.I. Md. Majid Huassain (not examined) at Balia Hospital at 10.15 a.m. on 25.09.1985 wherein Naresh Prasad Sah alleged that on the preceding night at about 9.30 p.m. he was going to discharge his natural urge after closing his sweat shop. In the meanwhile, Md. Murtaza Kasai (the appellant) came for purchasing sweats. THE informant replied that the sweat shop was already closed and the informant proceeded for discharging his natural urge. After evacuating, the informant returned but he saw the accused standing there. THE informants servant Jogendra Prasad Sah (P.W.6) told that the appellant has consumes 600 gms. of sweats but the price has not been given. THE informant asked the accused to pay the earlier dues. THEreafter, the accused fired from his pistol causing injury upon the stomach of the informant who fell down. Persons of the neighbourhood assembled and saw the accused escaping. THE informant was kept on a rickshaw and was brought to Balia Hospital for treatment where he gave his fardbeyan which resulted into a case under Section 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. THE fardbeyan was sent to the court and it was received there on 27.09.1985. In course of investigation, the informant died at Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna (P.M.C.H.) on 24.10.1985 and so Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the case. THE case was investigated into and after investigation, chargesheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed and explained to the accused who pleaded innocence. Hence trial proceeded.

(2.) THE defence of the appellant was of false implication and also that he was having butchery near the shop of the deceased and the deceased and his persons were determined to remove the shop of the appellant as it was giving bad smell to them and this was not liked which resulted into false implication.

(3.) P.W.3 Laddu Lal Rajak has reached the place of occurrence and then he saw 6-7 persons there and for the first time he saw Naresh Prasad Sah who was discharging his natural urge and at that very time according to him the firing was done. According to this witness the place of occurrence is south-east corner of the shop. According to P.W.2 the place of occurrence is north-east corner of the shop. The Investigating Officer has not been examined so this contradiction could not be explained. According to P.W.1 and P.W.2 there was litigation between Naresh Prasad Sah and Md. Murtaza Kasai for the demand of price of sweats and in course of altercation Md. Murtaza fired but according to P.W.3 Naresh Prasad Sah was fired while he was discharging his natural urge and this version gives altogether different colour of the occurrence.