NARESH MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused Naresh Mandal is challenging the judgment and order dtd. 2/2/2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Purnea, in Sessions Case No.487 of 2012 thereby convicted him of the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs.50,000.00 (Fifty thousand) for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs.10,000.00 (Ten thousand) for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, the learned trial Court had directed him to suffer default sentence of simple imprisonment of six months in case of default in payment of fine, as directed. 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 the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused at sufficient length of time. By taking us through the record and proceedings and more particularly through the depositions of prosecution witnesses, it is argued that the weapon of the offence was not recovered during the course of investigation. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that PWs 1 to 4 were the independent witnesses but they have failed to support the case of the prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, case of the prosecution is supported by interested witnesses, such as parents of deceased Guriya Kumari and her relative. Evidence of such interested witnesses cannot be acted upon for recording the conviction for serious offences. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, benefit of doubt is required to be given by allowing the appeal. As against this the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order.