BHAGWAN DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH eight persons including Dasrath Das were put on trial with accusation that they constituted an unlawful assembly and on exertion made by Das, petitioner fired shot causing gun shot injuries to Saryug Prasad Yadav (P.W, 8), as said Dasrath Das Died during pendency of appeal, the trial commenced only against seven persons when State examined nine witnesses including injured, doctor and police officer. Defence too examined two witnesses.

(2.) DEFENCE of the petitioner before Court below and also this Court been denial of his complicity in the incident as well as false implication. Trial Court, however, rejecting plea of innocence of the petitioner and others, while recorded findings of guilt against the petitioner under Sections 307, 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years on the first count, no sentence was however awarded on two counts. Petitioner suffered conviction also under Section 21 of the Arms Act for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years with direction that both sentences shall run concurrently. Rest, who suffered conviction under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code were, however, directed to be released under beneficial provision of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When petitioner carried the matter in appeal i.e. in Criminal Appeal No. 50/92, the appellate Court too while endorsing the findings recorded by the Court below, dismissed the appeal, hence this revision.

(3.) IT is urged that thought some motive was sought to be assigned by the State, no satisfactory evidence was adduced on this score since in this case direct evidences are available and that too of credence, motive pales into insignificance and hence even if there be paucity of good evidence on this score that would not negate bona fide of prosecution case. Other submissions canvassed at bar however deserves consideration. As has been urged at bar prosecution was launched against the petitioner for an occurrence that took place on 2nd February, 1982 and apart from undergoing order of long prosecution for about 20 years, the petitioner has remained in custody for some period.