SUBHASH YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the or -der of conviction and sentence passed by llnd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa, in S.T.No. 114/90 whereby he convicted the sole appellant, namely, Subhash Yadav, under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. besides a fine of Rs.10,000/ - (ten thousand) to be paid to the kins of the deceased and he further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.

(2.) THE fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of the deceased was recorded by S.I., Sudishtha Kumar Singh, Officer Incharge of Bakhtiarpur Police Station on 11.1.89 at 8.45 hours in Bakhtiarpur hospital. The prosecution story as disclosed in the fardbeyan is that on 11.1.89 at about 3 A.M. the informant along with Balram Yadav was sitting near a 'ghura ' in front of their house and were warming up. In the meantime, four persons came suddenly from the southern side being armed with guns. No sooner they came, the appellant fired upon the informant, the shot hit on his chest and another shot was fired by Rama Nand Yadav which caused injury on the right arm of the informant. One of the accused, namely, Kiro Yadav, fired upon Balram Yadav. An alarm was raised by which Buchho Yadav (P.W. 6), Chhote Lal Yadav (P.W. 7) and Bilo Yadav (P.W. 9) came and witnessed the occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the fardbeyan is that the accused Ram Nandan Yadav and Lalo Yadav had committed theft of a she buffalo of Debo Yadav and the informant got back the buffalo to the owner on account of which they were annoyed, initially a case under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the appellant and Ram Nandan Yadav, Lal Yadav and Kiro Yadav but after the death of the informant Section 302 of the I.P.C. was added.

(3.) IN order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses out of whom P.W. 7 Chhote Lal Yadav was tendered. P.W. 1, Daya Rani, is the wife of the deceased, P.W. 2, Sanjala Devi, is the daughter, P.W. 3, Meena Devi, is the niece, P.W. 4, Devendra Yadav, is the brother and P.W. 5, Chhote Lal Yadav, is nephew of the deceased. P.W. 8 Laxmi Yadav, is a witness on inquest report (Ext. 4). P.W. 10, Sunil Kumar Yadav, is a seizure list witness who has proved his signature as well as the signature of Tarni Prasad Yadav (Exts. 2 and 2/1), on the seizure list. He has deposed that he had seen two empty cartridges, one plastic cork and blood stained earth which were seized near the house of the deceased. He has also testified to the effect that the I.O. had prepared a production list of clothes produced by the daughter of the deceased and he had signed on the production list. He has proved his own signature as well as the signature of another witness. There is nothing worth comment in the testimony of P.W. 8 and P.W. 10. P.W. 9, Bilo Yadav, is a witness who has been named in the fardbeyan. P.W. 12, Dr. Jagdish Chandra, held postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, P.W. 11, Munshi Yadav, is the brother of the deceased claiming to be an eye witness to the occurrence and P.W. 14, Dr. Ghanshyam Singh, is the Doctor of Primary Health Centre of Simri Bakhtiarpur who examined the injury of the deceased first in point of time.