BATOHI KAMAT MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani, in Sessions Trial No. 94/95.

(2.) The prosecution case as disclosed in the fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Mahamaya Devi recorded on 1.9.1994 at 5.00 a.m. is that the informant's son, namely, Firan Jha was a mentally weak person and used to maintain himself by begging since last 4-5 years. On 31.8.1994 at 10.00 a.m., one Batohi Bharti informed that the deceased Firan Jha is lying unconscious near the western end of Jiwach river, so, the informant searched for her eldest son Jaichandra Jha, who was not available, so, the informant went to the river side and made enquiry from the deceased Firan Jha, who disclosed to the informant any how that these appellants assaulted him with lathi in the previous night. After saying this Firan Jha died. The informant came weeping to her village and disclosed about the occurrence to Uchit Narain Jha, Sita Ram Jha, Kumar Kant Jha and others. The informant's eldest son Jai Candra Jha came to house in the evening to whom the informant disclosed about the occurrence and thereafter went to the police station. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, a case under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted at Khagauli P.S. against the appellants on 1.9.1994 at 1.30 p.m. The fardbeyan was despatched to the Court on 2.9.1994 but it was received in the Court on the following day. After completing the investigation the police submitted charge-sheet under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants on the basis of which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

(3.) Both the appellants were charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and the defence as appearing from the trend of the suggestion given to the witnesses is that the appellants have been falsely implicated at the instance of Mukhiya and Sita Ram Jha, where they used to work as labourers and the appellants are innocent.