BHOLA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since Appellant Akhilesh Kumar Sinha, who preferred Cr. Appeal No. 347 of 1998, died during pendency of these appeals, appeal as against him had abated and hence only Cr. Appeal No. 338 of 1998 preferred by Bhola Kumar and Cr. Appeal No. 346 of 1998, preferred by Shive Gope, remained for consideration.

(2.) Factual scenario emerging from the Fardbeyan of Raj Kumar and also the narratives of the case unfolded by him at trial on that at about 14.30 hours on 24th-June, 1995, while Birendra Prasad (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') accompanying Raj Kumar (P.W. 2) was going on a two-wheeler, for house of Pappu and reached south to Bharat Lai Tent House, Bhola Kumar, Akhilesh Kumar Sinha (since deceased) and Shive Gope along with their associates showered bullets on the deceased and both of them being frightened, leaving their motorcycle, made endeavours to escape and while he managed good his escape on entering into a nearby lane, deceased after covering a short distance having slipped, dropped on the ground near the house of Nunu Pandit. The assailants and their associates however had not ceased to shower bullets. After he raised alarms and rushed to the deceased, the assailants had made good their escape in the lane and by that time he came there, Birendra was dead. He lost no time, and shortly after visiting his mother in his house, who was ailing, he left for village Kurthaul, informed family members of the deceased about ghastly killing of Birendra Singh by the assailants. The father and brother of the deceased accompanied him and came to the place of occurrence when dead body was being removed fa post mortem examination and the Police had already taken steps for collection of evidence during in vestigation. Fardbeyan of Raj Kumar was recorded by the Police Officer at 16.15 hours on 24th June, 1995 at a place in front of Bharat Lai Tent House, Purandarpur.

(3.) After the Police was set in motion, investigation followed and the Police Officer during investigation got inquest held over the dead body, visited place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, got post mortem held over the dead body by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, the State examined altogether six witnesses including Raj Kumar alias Raju Paswan (P.W. 2), family members of the deceased, the doctor and the Police Officer. The defence too had choosen to examine two witnesses ostensibly to counter allegations attributed to the Appellants and defence also took plea of alibi to improbabilise their presence at the place of occurrence at the material time of incident. Learned trial court, however, on scanning evidences, adduced on behalf of the parties, while rejecting plea of innocence of the Appellants, recorded finding of guilt against them under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The Appellants suffered conviction also under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years with direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.