SAMBAL RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the Judgment and order dtd. 1/8/1995 and 4/8/1995 respectively, passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas, Sasaram, in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1991 between the parties, thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life. For the sake of conveyance, the appellant/accused shall be referred to in his original capacity as an accused.

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

(3.) We heard Ms. Surya Nilambari, the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court vide order dtd. 30/7/2019. She argued that evidence of P.W.4 Bucha Paswan is not consistent with that of P.W.5 Budhan Paswan, though they both are claiming to be eye witnesses of the incident. She further argued that in all probability, PW. 4 Bucha Paswan had not seen the incident as house of P.W.3 Lal Muni Mahto is situated at the distance of about 100 yards from the house of P.W.4 Bucha Paswan. The dead body, according to the lerned Amicus Curiae was only having two injuries and as such, by the time P.W.4 Bucha Paswan reached on the spot of the incident, the incident must have been over. It is further argued that it is not probable that the deceased was in a position to cry. The learned Amicus Curiae further argued that P.W.5 Budhan Paswan is already disbelieved by the learned trial court for valid reasons and as such, the appellant/accused is entitled for acquittal.