NARESH SAHNI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/convicted accused by this appeal is challenging the Judgment and Order dtd. 31/10/2013 and 2/11/2013 respectively passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No.75 of 2011, thereby convicting him of the offences punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life as well as directing him to pay fine of Rs.10000.00 on the first count and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years apart from payment of fine of Rs.5000.00on the second count. The default sentences are also awarded to him and it is directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in his original capacity as "an accused ".

(2.) Facts in brief leading to the prosecution of the accused can be summarized thus:

(3.) We heard Ms. Archana Palkar Khopde, the learned appointed Advocate, on behalf of the appellant/accused. She vehemently argued that the prosecution is resting its case only on the version of the interested witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased. Though evidence on record shows that many villagers were present at the scene of the occurrence, no disinterested witness has been examined by the prosecution. It is further argued that P.W.2 Bishwanath Sahni, who happens to be father of the deceased, cannot be an eye witness to the incident as P.W.1 Sandhya Devi, has stated in her evidence that except a person named Shivbechan Sahni, no male member from the village was present at the spot of the incident. It is further argued that the prosecution has not brought on record seizure of blood stained clothes of the deceased as well as P.W.7 Samudri Devi nor the firearm was seized by the Investigating Officer. Evidence regarding the spot of the incident is also discrepant. Most important witness in the instant case can be Umesh but he is also not examined by the prosecution. The learned Advocate further argued that neither the doctor nor the Investigating Officer is examined by the prosecution and, therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.