KUBER MALI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11,9.1990 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan in S.Tr. No. 286/1981, whereby and whereunder both the appellants, Kuber Mali and Ram Bahadur Mali, have been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution case is based on a fardbeyan given by Lalita Devi (PW 6), the wife of the deceased, who at 9.00 a.m. on 6.8.1980 had stated before the Police Officer that while she had come out of her house to ease herself early in the morning on 6.8.1980 as also to awake her husband Indradeo Mali sleeping in the bathan, she had found her husband dead lying on the floor of bathan where copious blood was spread all over the floor. She had also stated that seeing her husband to be dead she started wailing and crying and on this a number of persons including Jawahir Mali (not examined), Birendra Mali (not examined) had come to the bathan and had seen the dead body of her husband lying on the floor of the bathan. She had further disclosed that the motive for the said killing of her husband could be a dispute relating to the land of that very bathan in which her husband was killed, inasmuch as appellant No. 1 Kuber Mali was desperate in taking possession of such land and had also always been fighting with her husband for the same. In this regard she has also narrated an incident of a day earlier when according to her while her husband was digging earth of that very land and she and her daughter Nirmala Devi (not examined) were carrying such earth for constructing a naad, appellant No. 1 around 12 noon was repeatedly crossing over the land and was threatening that her husband will also be buried in that very naad which was being constructed by them. Thus, alleging this as a motive the informant in the fardbeyan had stated that she was of the view that it was appellant No. 1 who had killed her husband in the night.

(3.) It has to be taken into account that the fard bey an of the informant (PW 6) was said to be made in presence of the attesting witness Birendra Mali (not examined) and had led to institution of Guthni P.S. Case No. 2 of 1980 wherein the police after investigation had submitted a charge-sheet against both the appellants and the offence being triable by a Court of Sessions, it was committed an order dated 4.4.1981 and had led to present trial resulting into conviction of the appellants by the impugned judgment which is the subject- matter of this appeal.