DHANJEE YADAV @ DHANMUN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2007 and the order of sentence dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. V, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No.305/2004/88/2006 by which the sole appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one year and further he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.08.2003, Akhshay Lal Singh (deceased), Mukhiya of Arang Gram Panchayat, son of the informant Budh Ram Singh (P.W.5) had gone to Dinara Block with Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2) on a Rajdoot Motorcycle to distribute the old age pension. THE informant had also gone to Dinara market. At about 3.00 P.M., the informant came on the road for returning to his house and saw that a Jeep came near the Gopalpur village with 5-6 co-villagers. Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2) told the informant that 5-6 shots have been caused to Akshay Lal Singh (deceased). THE informant went to the Jeep and sat besides him. Akshay Lal Singh (deceased) told the informant that when he was going with the Shaktidhar Singh by a Rajdoot motorcycle on the bridge Dhanmun Yadav (appellant), Upendra Yadav and the brother- in-law of Dhanmun Yadav (appellant) stopped the motorcycle and all the three persons made indiscriminate firing at Akshay Lal Singh (deceased). 5-6 shots hit Akshay Lal Singh (deceased). He fell down. THE informant was also told that the appellant and others also shot fired at Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2), but he jumped in the canal and he did not receive any shot, as he went to the other side of the canal and raised alarm. THEreafter, all the three accused fled away. This fact was also supported by Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2). THE injured was taken to the Dinara Police Station by the Jeep. THEreafter, injured was taken to Dinara Hospital. During treatment Akshay Lal Singh (deceased) succumbed to the injuries. It has been further alleged that a few days prior to the occurrence, Akshay Lal Singh had told the informant that Dhanmun Yadav (appellant) had asked Akshay Lal Singh to pressurize the witnesses in a case against the brother of the appellant, which was refused by the deceased. Since that time the appellant had became the enemy of the deceased. THE occurrence of firing has taken place at 2.00 P.M. on 20.08.2003. THE fardbeyan of the informant has been recorded by S.I. Sitaram Singh on 20.08.2003 at 22 hours. THE fardbeyan has been witnessed by Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2), Rajendra Prasad Singh (not examined), Rajendra Prasad Singh (not examined) and Babu Ram Singh (not examined). On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Dinara P.S. Case No.109/2003 was instituted. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the sole appellant showing accused Upendra Yadav and Jitendra Yadav as absconders. THE cognizance was taken by the S.D.J.M against all the three accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. THE case was committed to the court of sessions. THE charges were framed against the sole appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act to which he denied and claimed to be tried. THE defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. THE trial proceeded against the appellant. After the trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment, as aforesaid.

(3.) P.W.5 is the informant and the father of the deceased. He has stated that the occurrence took place on 20.08.2003 at about 2.30 P.M. At that time, he was in the Dinara Bazar. His son (deceased) had gone to Dinara Block office to get the old age pension distributed by his motorcycle with Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2). In the Dinara Bazar, Akshay Kumar Singh and Shaktidhar (PW 2) had met him and they told that they were returning to the village. He also told that he would also return to his house after purchasing some articles. After purchasing, he came to the Chowk Bazar Dinara at about 3.00 P.M. A Jeep came there on which Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2) and 4-5 persons of Gopalpur were boarding. On his query, Shaktidhar Singh (P.W.2) told him about the occurrence. He also boarded on the Jeep. Akshay Lal Singh also told him that the appellant, Upendra Yadav and brother-in-law of appellant shot fire at him. P.W.5 and others went to the police station where the Officer-in-charge told them to get the treatment of the injured in the hospital which is in front of the police station. Akshay Lal Singh (deceased) was taken to the Hospital where he succumbed to his injury during treatment. The persons assembled in the hospital raised alarm. He has further stated that his co-villagers P.W.1 , P.W.3 and P.W.4 told him that they had also seen the accused persons escaping by motorcycle. He has further stated that the reason of the murder of Akshay Lal Singh is that the brother of accused Dhunmum (appellant) was in jail in a case of murder and Dhunmun was making pressure upon his son, who was the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat to get the case compromised which was refused by the deceased. Due to resistance and raising alarm by the local people for the murder of the deceased, the police officer came to the hospital at about 10.00 P.M. and recorded his fardbeyan. Thereafter, he put his signature (Ext.1/A). The fardbeyan was also witnessed by P.W.2 and others. In his cross-examination, he has stated that P.W.2 is not his relative, but belongs to his caste. He has further stated that deceased had started from his house at about 8-9 A.M. after taking meal. Dinara Bazar Chowk and Dinara Chowk are adjacent. Dinara Block is also near the Dinara Chowk. In paragraph 20, he has stated that he had gone to the police station. Thereafter, he went to the hospital. He remained in the police station for a minute. The police officer asked to go to the hospital. He would also go there. In paragraph 21, he has stated that the motorcycle of his son (deceased) had been thrown in the canal as he was told by Keshav Singh, Prayag Singh etc. (not examined). He did not state before the I.O. regarding motorcycle thrown in the canal. The motorcycle had been taken out from the canal after a few days of the occurrence and it was given in the Sasural of the deceased. He has denied the suggestion of the prosecution that no occurrence has taken place as disclosed by him and the accused have been falsely implicated in this case.