ANJANI CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/ - each or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The trial Court further ordered that if the amount of fine is realised, the same will be paid to P.W. 14 Tarawati Devi.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that on 6.2.89 at about 2.45 p.m. the Informant Ram Pukar Choudhary (P.W. 2) had gone to ease in the back of his 'Bathaan", when he heard the sound of 'falafat ' on which he rushed towards 'Bathaan ' and saw that his own nephew Anjani Choudhary, Kinkin Choudhary and Bhimsen Choudhary were assaulting his Brother Prem Kumar Chaudhary (deceased) with lathi and farsa. The Appellant Anjani Choudhary was armed with Pistol and lathi, Bhimsen Choudhary was armed (sic) farsa and Kinkin Choudhary was armed with Bhala. Seeing the informant, the Appellants fled away towards west. The informant 'sbrother succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon him by the Appellants. On alarm, Satyadeo Choudhary (P.W. 1), Madan Pd. Choudhary (P.W. 5), (sic)sharfi Choudhary (P.W. 4) came and saw the alleged occurrence. The motive for the occurrence as alleged in the fardbayan of the informant is that a partition had taken (sic)ce between the brothers and all the four brothers started living seperately as per their share allotted in the family partition in which the mother of the informant was also allotted some land but the mother used to live with the deceased and the informant after partition. It is further stated that the mother of the informant executed a deed of gift in respect of her land in favour of informant 'swife, on account of which, the informant 's brother, namely, Mukti Choudhary and Ram Pukar Choudhary as well as the Appellants raised dispute and due to that reason the Appellants committed the murder of the deceased.

(3.) IN order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses, out of whom, P.W. 3 Ramadhaar Choudhary has proved the formal F.I.R (Exhibit -2), P.W. 7 Md. Israrul Haque is also a formal witness who proved the post mortem register brought from the office of Civil Surgeon and proved the post mortem report (Exhibit -4) which relates to the deceased, namely, Prem Kumar Choudhary P.W. 8. Yogendra Prasad is another formal witness, who has proved the inquest report (Exhibit -5), P.W. 10 Arbind Kumar Mishra has proved the information petition dated 28.7.87 (Exhibit -6), P.W. 11 Gopal Pd. Singh has proved the report of S.I. Feku Rai under Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex -hibit -7), P.W. 12 Ramakant Choudhary has proved the typing of the protest petition (Exhibit -8) and P.W. 15 Ram Bhushan Jha has formally proved the injury report (Ex -hibit -9). C.W. 1 Pawan Kumar Choudhary has proved the signatures of the S.D.O. (Exhibits -10 to 10/1) on the notice under Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure. C.W. 2 Sikan Sahani has proved the deed of gift dated 15.12.87 executed by -Most. Suhagwati Chaudharain in favour of Dharmsheela Devi. There is nothing worth comment in the testimony of the above named witnesses, who are formal in nature. P.W. 4 Asharfi Choudhary and P.W. 5 Madan Pd. Choudhary have been named as witnesses in the fardbayan but they have turned volte face. P. W. 4 has deposed that on hearing halla, he went to the Dalian of the deceased and his dead body lying there but he did not see the assailants. In cross -examination, he has stated that before him about 200 people had assembled near the place of occurrence. P.W. 5 has expressed his ignorance about the alleged occurrence and denied to have made any statement before the police. In cross -examination, he has, however, admitted that on hearing halla, he went to the P.O. and found that Prem Kumar Choudhary had died and he also noticed that the deceased was lying in pool of blood. He also admitted that dispute was going on between the deceased and the Appellants for the share of land. He has stated that the deceased was his cousin brother, whereas, the Appellants are the sons of his cousin brother. Although, P.Ws. 4 and 5 have turned volte face but from their evidence it is atleast established that soon after the occurrence when they reached at the P.O., they found the deceased lying dead and it is also clear from their evidence that land dispute was going on between the Appellants and the deceased.