BHIM YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused Bhim Yadav is challenging the Judgment and Order dtd. 25/4/2014 and 30/4/2014 respectively, passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Banka, in Sessions Trial No.148 of 2010, thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Sec. 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life apart from imposition of fine of rupees ten thousand and in default directing him to undergo imprisonment for six months. For the sake of convenience, the appellant/ convicted accused shall be referred to in his original capacity as "an accused".

(2.) Facts leading to the prosecution of the accused projected from the police report can be summarized thus:

(3.) We heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant at sufficient length of time. By taking us through the evidence of alleged eye witnesses he argued that evidence of eyewitnesses is suffering from serious lacunae and it can not be said that they had actually witnessed the incident. They were hiding inside the house and came out only in the morning. It is further argued that the place of occurrence is also not proved by the prosecution. During the course of evidence it was shifted from the front-yard of the house to the cattle shed. According to the appellant, there was dispute about the partition between deceased Maduli and named accused Arjun and therefore it can not be inferred that the appellant-accused would indulge in dacoity. The accused is related to Arjun Yadav who is named as an accused in the FIR. The learned Senior Advocate further argued that the prosecution has suppressed the earliest version about the incident as evidence of the prosecution shows that PW 11 Basuki Yadav was sent to the police station for informing about the incident and that information was received at the police station at 8:45 AM of 17/10/2009. However, the FIR was registered at 16 hours of 17/10/2009. Apart from this, it is further argued by the learned Advocate that the charge itself was defective as charge for commission of murder was not framed nor name of the person who were allegedly murdered is mentioned in the charge. He further argued that the accused was not examined in terms of object of Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. and this has caused serious prejudice to the accused. In a cryptically framed one question, the circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused are showing to have been explained to the accused and, therefore, the conviction and resultant in sentence imposed on the accused is required to be set aside.