MD. SAINUL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused no.1 Md. Sainul and appellant/convicted accused no.2 Md. Jabbar are challenging the Judgment and Order dtd. 31/8/2015 and 4/9/2015 respectively passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Sessions Trial No.866 of 2012 thereby convicting both of them of offences punishable under Ss. 324 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned order, they both of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs.5000.00 by each of them and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Sec. 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code with direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. For the sake of convenience, the appellants shall be referred to in their original capacity as "accused no.1 Md. Sainul" and "accused no.2 Md. Jabbar".

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

(3.) We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants at sufficient length of time. By taking us through the entire evidence, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that there is no evidence to reflect intention of the accused persons to kill Md. Mintu and, as such, no offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It is further argued that evidence of P.W.6 Md. Nahid and his mother P.W.7 Bibi Rehana is not at all trustworthy and consistent. Their evidence is totally contradictory. P.W.7 Bibi Rehana is not an eye witness to the incident as her name is not reflected in the F.I.R. Evidence of P.W.6 Md. Nahid shows that he reached on the spot of the incident after happening of the incident.