LADDAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 378 of 2014 has been filed by convicted accused Laddan @ Alimuddin and convicted accused Salamat Ali whereas Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 642 of 2014 has been filed by the convicted accused Chhotu Mian. By these appeals, they are challenging the Judgment and Order dtd. 12/2/2014 and 15/2/2014 respectively passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-II, Barh, Patna, in Sessions Trial No.1073 of 2012 whereby they all came to be convicted of the offences punishable under Ss. 302 r/w 34 and 394 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They all are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs.1000.00each for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for one month. They all are further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Sec. 394 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code with a direction to pay fine of Rs.1000.00 each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial court. As both these appeal are arising out common Judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellants, both are being disposed of by this common Judgment. For the sake of convenience, the appellants shall be referred to in their original capacity as "an accused".

(2.) We heard Ms. Archana Palkar Khopde, the learned Advocate appointed to represent accused in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 378 of 2014. She vehemently argued that evidence of P.W. 1 Rukshana Khatoon is the not consistent with the FIR of the instant case and the same is suffering from infirmities. This witness have not clarified how she untied herself. It is further argued that, though two persons are claiming to be eye witnesses to the incident, they had not made any hue and cry during course of the incident. Therefore, their evidence is unreliable. It is further argued that case of the prosecution itself is to the effect that deceased Albia Khatoon was having land dispute with others such as Naresh Rai and Mukesh Rai. Therefore possibility of commission of crime by those persons cannot be ruled out. She further argued that neither the weapon of the offence nor blood stain cloths were seized from the accused persons and therefore, case of the prosecution is not free from the doubt. By placing reliance on Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Versus State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 501 and Suresh and Another Versus State U.P., (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 673, the learned Advocate Ms. Archana Palkar Khopde argues that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the incident took has under the prearranged plan by sharing common intention by all accused persons and therefore, appellants/ accused Laddan @ Alimuddin and Salamat Ali needs to be acquitted. We have also heard the learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 642 of 2014, who adopted the same argument as advanced by the appointed advocate. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the First Informant opposed the appeals and contended that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused.

(3.) We have considered the submissions so advanced and also perused the record and proceedings including oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.