(1.) Sole Appellant Surendra Rabidas has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and order of sentence there under to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 06.12.1988 passed by Sri Ram Kishor Singh, Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Case No. 181 of 1986.
(2.) The informant of the case is the deceased. Informant Suraj Rabidas had been to see his field at about 8.30 A.M. on 19.5.1985 in his village Kabilpur. Accused Surendra Rabidas came near his field which was situated adjacent to the land of the accused. On the point of cutting the ridge of the field, altercation took place between Suraj Rabidas and Surendra Rabidas. This altercation led to fighting in which three companions of accused Surendra Rabidas came and caught hold of the informant. Thereafter accused Surendra Rabidas stabbed the informant towards right side of abdomen with intention to kill him. Informant after sustaining injury fell down on the ground. The witnesses Mangal Rabidas (P.W.4), Kapil (not examined) and Nogen Rabidas (P.W.3) came and witnessed the occurrence. Fardbeyan of Suraj Rabidas resulted in Pranpur P.S. Case No. 24 of 1985 on 19.5.1985 for offences under Sections 342 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Informant Suraj Rabidas in course of treatment died on 29.5.1985 and by order dated 15.6.1985, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. The fardbeyan has no attesting witness. The case was investigated into and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of Sessions where charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against accused Surendra Rabidas for intentionally or knowingly causing death of Suraj Rabidas and charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against other two co-accused namely, Kamla Yadav and Ashok Thakur for sharing common intention for committing the murder intentionally or knowingly. Charges were explained to the accused persons who pleaded innocence. So the trial proceeded.
(3.) The defence of the accused persons was of false implication on account of land dispute.