JAY SHANKAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Jagdish Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole appellant in Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 832 of 2006, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.748 of 2006 and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

(2.) CR. Appeal (SJ) No.748 of 2006 has been filed by Daya Shankar Shukla and Babuli Shukla @ Babli Shukla whereas Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.832 of 2006 has been filed by Jay Shankar Shukla. Both the appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.8.2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1997. The appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.748 of 2006, namely, Daya Shankar Shukla and Babuli Shukla @ Babli Shukla have been convicted under section 304 part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, whereas, the sole appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.832 of 2006, Jay Shankar Shukla, has been convicted under section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Appellants of both the appeals have further been convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) THE informant has further alleged that in the meantime his younger sister Asha Kumari came crying at the place of occurrence. The accused Babli Shukla assaulted her also by Lathi causing injury on her head. Thereafter, the informant's mother Sita Devi, brother Binod Kumar Shukla and others started crying for help. Several villagers came running towards the place of occurrence, and seeing them, the accused persons fled away. The informant then states that his brother was beaten one year back by the accused persons. The motive for the occurrence is alleged to be an ongoing land dispute in court between the parties. It has also been stated in the first information report that the accused persons are close relatives of the informant.