MOTILAL BAITHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/accused no.1 by this appeal is challenging the Judgment and order dtd. 5/9/1994 passed in Sessions Trial No.270 of 1988 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life. Along with the appellant/accused, his sons, namely, accused no.2 Nagendra Baitha and accused 3 Bigu Baitha were also put up for trial. However, they came to be acquitted by the impugned Judgment and order. For the sake of conveyance, the appellant/accused shall be referred in his original capacity.

(2.) The facts in brief leading to the prosecution case projected from the police report can be summarized thus;

(3.) We heard Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, the learned Advocate appointed as an amicus curiae to assist this Court for espousing the cause of the appellant/accused as well as the learned Prosecutor for the State. We have also examined the record and proceedings. It is argued by Mr. Mishra the learned Advocate that evidence of the prosecution regarding use of weapons by the co-accused is contradictory and discrepant. P.W.6 Paramdeoti Devi has deposed that accused Bigu Baitha used stick whereas accused Nagendra Baitha used brick. As against this, P.W.7 Parvati Devi attributed stick to co-accused Nagendra Baitha and brick to co-accused Bigu Baitha. He further argued that statement of the deceased cannot be construed as the dying declaration. The evidence of the prosecution lacunic and unsatisfactorily. As against this, the learned Prosecutor supported the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and resultant the sentence.