PRABHAT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two appellants in this appeal. They have been convicted under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. For the offence under Section 302. they have been awarded death sentence. No separate sentece has been awarded for other offences.

(2.) THE prosecution of the appellant was set in motion on the fardbeyan of P.W.3, Champa Devi. On 23.2.98 14 11 a.m. she stated before S.I. Darrichan Ram, Officer -in -charge of Patori Police Station, that on the preceding day i.e. 22.2.98 at 4 D.m. the appellants along with three unknown persons came and asked her son Panchu Paswan to accompany them to the market for buying medicine. Panchu Paswan declined to go. They left the place out returned after one and half hours and ook away Panchu Paswan. When Panchu ¦3aswan did not return home she along vith her daughter -in -law Rita Devi started searching him. They searched for the whole light but in vain. In the morning she learned rom a resident of village Kutubpur that a lead body was lying in the maize field at village Mohanpur. She along with villagers went there and found the. dead body of her son. The body was riddled with injuries by gun shots on the temple. She stated that the cause of occurrence was that a day earlier on 21.2.98 Panchu Paswan had refused to carry goods of the appellants which infuriated them and they had made sarcastic remarks against him.

(3.) AT the trial the prosecution examined 9 witnesses to prove its case out of whom P.W. 2 Tilak Paswan, P.W.4 Hriday Paswan, P.W.5 Asharfi Paswan and P.W.6 Rajendra Rai turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The witnesses who supported the prosecution case on fact are P.W.1 Shambu Paswan, a co -villager and P.W. 3 Champa Devi, the informant herself. The doctor who held post mortem, namely, Dr. R.P. Rai was examined as P.W.7, S.I. Darrichan Ram, the Investigating Officer, was examined as P.W.8. Another S.I. Kishori Hazara was examined as P. W.9. The appellants did not examine any witness in defence. At the end of trial the appellants were convicted and awarded sentence in the manner stated at the outset. In view of the death sentence awarded to the appellants, the trial court made reference under Section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The death reference was taken up along with the appeal preferred by the appellants.