MUNNA ALIAS BISNUDEO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Munna Bisnudeo Mandal has been convicted under sections 302 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 Arms Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years under section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under section 27 Arms Act, by Sri S.N. Sinha, 1st AddI. Sessions Judge, Munger, in S.T. No. 5651 85.

(2.) The prosecution case, which has given rise to this appeal, is that, appellant Munna Bisnudeo Mandal often used to come and stay with his relation, Baudhi Mandal since acquitted, a neighbour of the informant. He had developed a fascination for Veena Devi, niece of the informant Natho Mandal (P.W.5) and daughter of P.W.1 Jai Singh Mandal. On the preceding day of the occurrence, he had come to the house of Baudhi Mandal. In the intervening night of 231 24-11-1984 when Veena, since deceased, was sleeping in her house alongwith her sister Kaili Devi (P.W.3), appellant went there and pulled her Saree, to have sex with her but she refused. Thereafter, both the sisters came to the house of the informant for rest. At about 11.30 in the night, while Veena was sleeping, alongwith her sister Kaili and aunt Rama (P.W.2) wife of the informant, the appellant entered the room and awoke her. When she protested appellant dragged her on the varandah and shot her dead from a pistol. Appellant was identified by Rama Devi and Kaili Devi in the light of Dibia which was burning in the room. On hearing, the sound of firing, informant who was sleeping in his cattle shed, outside rushed to his house and saw the appellant running away from there, with a pistol and Veena was lying dead on the varandah. Meanwhile, Jai Singh Mandal (P.W.1) father of the deceased also arrived there and saw the appellant, fleeing away alongwith Boudhi and Parmeshwar, since acquitted. Kaili and Rama Devi narrated about the occurrence- to Jai Singh Mandal and the informant. In the morning the informant went to the Police Station where his fardbeyan was recorded at about 1.45 P.M. On the basis of which First Information Report was drawn up. After charge sheet and commitment, the case came up for trial before the 1st AddI. Sessions Judge, Munger who framed the charges against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence was that the deceased was done to death by her family members on account of her bad character.

(3.) The prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses to prove its case. Cut of whom, P.W.1 Jai Singh Mandal is the father of deceased Veena. He came to the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of firing and saw the accused persons fleeing away in the flash of torch light. P.Ws.2 and 3, Rama Devi and Kaili Devi are the aunt and sister of the deceased. They arc eye witnesses to the occurrence. They were sleeping in a room alongwith the deceased, at the time of occurrence P.W.4 Gaya Devi is the daughter-in-law of the informant. She had seen the accused persons, fleeing away from the place of occurrence, in the flash of torch light. P.W. 5 Natho Mandal is the informant. P.W.6 Shankar Mandal has been tendered. P.W.7 Srikant Mandal is a witness on the inquest. P.W.8 Dharma Narain Prasad has proved protest petition (Ext.2) P.W.9 Dr. Promod Bihari Lal has held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has proved post-mortem report (Ext. 4). P.W. 10 and 11 Mangal Pandit and Jagrup Sah are the seizure list witnesses of blood stained earth. They had turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 12 Arun Kumar Keshri had investigated the case and submitted charge sheet. P.W. 13 Ram Govind Singh had recorded the fardbeyan and investigated the case in part.