PARMANAND KIYAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The salient features of the prosecution case are that on 29th July, 1981 Saheshwar Sah (P. W. 3) and Bhola Sah (P. W. 1) allegedly purchased 70 bags of paddy in village Parsanwa which they despatched to Lakhisarai on bullock-carts, pursuant to which they boarded an auto and came at Ramgarh Chowk where auto was intercepted by the appellant and his associates. The appellant allegedly dragged Saheshwar Sah from auto and did not permit either victim or his companion to raise alarm. The appellant thereafter took him to village Lohanda where he was confined in a room and got executed stampd paper, for security of Rs. 60,000/-. Bhola Sah who had accompanied the victim informed his brother Ram Balak Sah (P.W. 2) who took recourse to public authority and it is how that police case had been registered on strength of a Sanha entry recorded by the police at Halsi police station. As usual, investigation commenced, in course of which the Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses and on conclusion of investigation laid charge-sheet before the Court.

(2.) After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the trial commenced, in course of which the State examined three witnesses including the victim, his companion who had witnessed the incident and also brother who set the police in motion on being informed about the incident.

(3.) The defence of the appellant both before the Court below and this Court had been denial of accusations attributed to him and it was pleaded that as Saheshwar Sah had not making payment of price of paddy purchased by him on credit, and for which he was putting pressure on him, he was falsely implicated. The defence too had chosen to examine two witnesses ostensibly to counter allegations attributed to the appellant. However, from the narrations given by defence witnesses, the impression which is gathered is that the transaction was made with Ram Balak Sah and not with the victim Saheshwar Sah. The trial Court, however, negatived plea of innocence of the appellant, and believing the prosecution witnesses, recorded finding of guilt against the appellant under Sections 364 and 348 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years, on the first count, and for a term of three years on the second count with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.