FIROZ Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused Firoz @ Binod Yadav is challenging the judgment and order dtd. 1/3/2014 and 4/3/2014 respectively, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj, in Sessions Trial No.1183 of 2011/Trial No.63 of 2011 thereby convicting him of the offences punishable under Ss. 376(2)(f), 450 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him accordingly. For the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life apart from imposition of fine of Rs.10,000.00 (Ten thousand). In default of payment of fine he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000.00 (Five thousand) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. For the offence punishable under Sec. 450 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.2,000.00 (Two thousand) and default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. 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, projected from the police report, can be summarized thus:

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused at sufficient length of time. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that uncle of the victim, who had taken the dead body to the M.G.M. Hospital, is not examined by the prosecution. It is further argued that PW 6 Santosh Kumar is a tutored witness. Though the Investigating Officer has stated that statement of this witness was taken on the same day, this witness Santosh is stating that his statement came to be recorded after two days. This witness has admitted in the cross-examination that his father had informed him as to what should be told to the police. It is further argued that the prosecuting party was on inimical term with the accused giving motive of his false implication to them. The accused was removed from the employment by PW 1 Bhanu. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution in this case and therefore the charges cannot be held to be proved.