RASHID MANSOORL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole Appellant suffered conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) FACTS of the case are tell -e -tale Preceding his death, the deceased had a wordy duel with the Appellant simply for this latter asking for Rs. 20/ - pursuant to which it was alleged that while the deceased was washing his hand in the courtyard of his house, the Appellant having brought a pointed weapon, pierced in the chest of the deceased who eventually dropped (sic) and with these accusations, fardbeyan and Md. Shamshad, son of the deceased was recorded on 4.4.1991. As usual, a (sic) information report had been drawn up and investigation followed. In course of investigation, Police Officer visited place of occurence, recorded statement of witnesses prepared inquest report over the dead body of the deceased, sent the dead body mortuary fa post mortem examination noticed blood drops at the place of occurence, and on receipt of post mortem port, laid charge sheet before the Court against the Appellant. In the eventual, (sic) that followed, the Stae examined altoged six witnesses, and those examined by State include family members of the ceased, the doctor, the Investigation Officer, who collected evidences, a witness who produced in Court the Shambhu Singh Versus State Of Bihar offending weapon, and also a formal witness who placed on the record, Station diary entry Nos. 64, 65 and 73 dated 4.4.1991 on the record.

(3.) FINDING recorded by the Court below was sought to be assailed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant primarily on twin grounds. Firstly it was urged that through one Taimuna Khatoon was residing in the neighbour and there has been evidence also about her arrival at the material of incident, no family member of Taimuna Khatoon was ever examined, and (sic) those examined by the State were only family members of the deceased, entirely to the exclusion of independent witnesses, against whom possibly no eye brows could have been raised. Other plank of argument on behalf of the Appellant was that though the earliest version, the deceased was thrown to have suffered only one blow on Chest, subsequently, embellishments were produced in the statement of the witnesses to suggest even second blow on the thigh of the deceased by the Appellant.