SONU AKHTAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused Sonu Akhtar Khan is challenging the judgment and order dtd. 14/3/2014 and 22/3/2014 respectively, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, in Sessions Case No. 29 of 2012/27 of 2012, thereby convicting him of offences punishable under Ss. 364A, 302, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. For the reasons best known to it, the learned trial court had not sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Sec. 364A of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentence to suffer imprisonment for life apart from imposition of fine of Rs.50,000.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, similar sentence was imposed on him. For the offence punishable under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years apart from fine of of Rs.10,000.00and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in the 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. He argued that evidence on record shows that the accused was taken in custody by police even before lodgment of the FIR by PW 8 Meraj Khan. Thereafter he was subjected to ill treatment. It is further argued that then the farce of recording of his confessional statement is done by the prosecution. There is no admissible evidence to hold that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused. The discovery of fact is not proved as the accused was subjected to beating by the Investigating Officer for extracting confession. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, he is entitled for acquittal.