DHANIK LAL URAON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, namely, Dhanik Lal Uraon against the judgment of conviction dtd. 4/8/2015 and order of conviction dtd. 6/8/2015 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Supaul in connection with Sessions Trial No.229 of 2011 arising out of Chhatapur P.S. Case No.141 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after hearing the convict on the point of sentence vide consequential order dtd. 6/8/2015, the trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000.00 for the offence committed under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) On the basis of the fardbeyan, the informant, namely, Laxmi Uraon, the prosecution case as recapitulated is hereunder that on 24/9/2011 at about 2.30 P.M., informant's wife Ramni Devi aged about 50 years was sleeping over Chauki in her veranda, then the appellant Dhanik Lal Uraon came with iron rod and started assaulting her. His wife tried to escape and ran over brick soiling road but after being chased, she was captured by the appellant and forced her to lie on the road and pressed her neck with leg and brutally assaulted her by iron rod and bricks over her head and damaged her both eyes. As such, his wife died on spot. The motive behind this occurrence is that one week before the occurrence, some altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased regarding grazing of cattle in the field of the appellant.

(3.) After recording the fardbeyan of the informant, a formal FIR was recorded and the investigation accordingly initiated. After completing the investigation, chargesheet has been submitted against the appellant after finding the case true. The case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and disposal. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence is of total innocence and the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case.