BIMAL KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.2.1996 and order dated 1.3.1993 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 90 of 1994 convicting and sentencing both the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each under Section 302. Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for five years each under Section 27, Arms Act. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as disclosed by fardbeyan (Exhibit -4) of informant Bhuneshwar Mandal (P.W. 2) recorded on 19.2.1993 at 9 a.m. in short, is that on 19.2.1993 at about 7.30 a.m., informant was sitting on the chair in the front portion of his house when his son Mukhiya Singh @ Badal (since deceased), for attending a meeting, left the house and he went to a betel shop of one Tarni Bind (not examined) situate on road in front of the house of the informant for taking betel and while he was standing at the shop, five persons, three from northern side and two from southern side, came there and surrounded him and fired shots on his head as a result of which he fell down. Informant saw that appellant Milton Yadav @ Bimal Kumar Yadav fired first shot hitting the head of his son and when his son fell down, appellant Manoj Kumar fired second shot. The informant alleged that both the appellants and three unknown persons committed murder of his son and the occurrence was witnessed by Vijay Kumar Singh (not examined), Narayan Mistri (P.W. 3), Mahesh Kumar Mandal (P.W. 8), Gangadhar Mandal (P.W. 4), Kishori Prasad Singh (P.W.7) and Kailash Mandal (not examined). After committing the murder of son of informant, both the appellants alongwith their companions fled away towards western forest through village Jalshakra which is situate towards west of the village of informant and they were followed by the villagers but could not be apprehended. About the motive of occurrence, the informant stated in the fardbeyan that in the year, 1989, a dispute on a matter of contract had taken place and his deceased son and villagers had opposed both the appellants and in the year, 1989 also, an attack was made on the deceased and both the appellants had given threatening of committing murder of deceased and for these differences and enmity, both the appellants alongwith some unknown criminals committed the murder of son of informant.

(3.) THE case of appellants, as it appears from trend of cross -examination of prosecution witnesses, is of their complete innocence and false implication in this case on account of enmity.