MUNNA HARIJAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/convicted accused is challenging the Judgment and Order dtd. 25/7/2014 and 1/8/2014 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Kishanganj, in Sessions Case No.565 of 2013, thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of life apart from directing him to pay fine of Rs.10,000.00 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to as "an accused".

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

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused. He argued that P.W.8 Rina Devi cannot be said to be a prudent person having capacity to depose as she has stated in her evidence that she married P.W.9 Ram Lal Harijan prior to 14 years and has further stated her age as 22 years. According to the learned counsel, she has three children and, therefore, she is not a matured lady, whose evidence can be accepted. It is further argued that P.W.2 Krishna Prasad is a labourer who goes for labourer work and he cannot be an eye witness to the subject crime which took place after 09.00 A.M. It is further argued that P.W.4 Rupo Devi is also not an eye witness to the subject crime and P.W.5 Dukho Devi is an interested witness because as per the village relations, the first informant is her brother-in-law. It is urged that the first informant is also not an eye witness to the subject crime and, therefore, the appellant/accused is entitled for acquittal. Evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is contradictory. It is also argued that, in fact, the case is of honour killing of Rukmani Devi because she married the accused because of love relations. Therefore, she was killed by her parents. It is further argued that weapon of the offence was not recovered and the prosecution has failed to prove the motive.