RAJU DUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the judgment and order dtd. 17/6/2014 and 18/6/2014 respectively passed in Sessions Case No. 244 of 2011/ 31 of 2011 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur (Bhabhua), thereby convicting him of the offences punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for the sake of brevity) Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, as well as Sec. 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Prevention of Atrocities Act for the sake of brevity). For the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the IPC, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5000.00 (five thousand). For the offence punishable under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.1000.00 (one thousand). For the offence punishable under Sec. 3 (2) (v) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5000.00 (five thousand). In default of payment of fine, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Co- accused Baliram Dubey and Ram Bharat Dubey were however acquitted by the learned Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in his original capacity as an accused.

(2.) Facts in brief leading to the prosecution of the accused, projected from the police report, can be summarized thus:

(3.) We heard Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused at sufficient length of time. By taking us through the record and proceeding, he argued that none of the prosecution witness is speaking about seeing the accused with Gun at the time of incident. It is further argued that no fire-arm came to be seized during the course of investigation and, therefore, prosecution witnesses are belied on the point of firing a bullet on First Informant Narayan Ram. It is further argued that though prosecution witnesses are stating about different time of death of injured Narayan Ram, the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence regarding sustaining of injury by First Informant Narayan Ram in the course of the incident. It is further argued that the prosecution has not even dared to file supplementary charge sheet with an accusation that injured Narayan Ram died because of injuries sustained in the said incident. Even no evidence is adduced in respect of alleged medical treatment to First Informant Narayan Ram or his subsequent death because of the injuries sustained in the incident in question. It is further argued that though according to the prosecution case, the Police Officer reached on the spot of the incident within few hours, nothing was seized from the spot of the incident. The crutches, pot of water, blood stained soil etc, ought to have been seized from the spot of the incident if the incident really took place as per the version of the prosecution. Even blood stained clothes of witnesses who had held injured Narayan Ram were not seized by the prosecution. It is further argued that though it is claimed by the prosecution witnesses that injured Narayan Ram was sitting on the spot of the incident for a period of about one and a half hours, not a single prosecution witness is stating about any disclosure in respect of incident of injured Narayan Ram to them. It is further argued that even evidence of the prosecution is to the effect that injured Narayan Ram was a crippled person who was unable to walk and because of dysentery he was reliving himself at the house itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that Narayan Ram had gone all the way outside the village for relieving himself accompanied by his wife. With this, it is argued that evidence of all witnesses who are near relatives of injured Narayan Ram and deceased Dhanvarti Devi is wholly untrustworthy. It is suffering from major contradictions and inconsistencies. It is argued that the appellant/accused is entitled for acquittal because on the same set of evidence co- accused were acquitted by the learned Trial Court.