(1.) Facts of the case are to short for elaboration. As assembly elections in the year 2000 was to be held, polling booths had been established at Circle Officer, Dumra. Pramod Kumar, brother of deceased Sujit Kumar alias Pappu, who was appointed as Polling agent, visiter polling booth in the company of his brother Sudhir Kumar at 10.30 a.m. on 22nd February, 2000 and took his younger brother Sujit Kumar alias Pappu for having breakfast in the nearby hotel. Allegedly all of them took breakfast in Bombay Hotel which situates in Station Road, Sitamarhi, and shortly after they left the premises and had reached near Bajrang Petrol Pump, he noticed Mithilesh Thakur, Binod Prasad and Dinesh Prasad alongwith two unknown persons, when on exhortation made by Binod Prasad, Mithilesh Thakur pumped bullet on the person of Pappu who instantaneously dropped on the ground. Though assailants and his companion were given good chase, but they managed good their escape.
(2.) The injured was carried to HMT hospital. Sitamarhi where after primary treatment. Dr. Ramakant Singh, considering seriousness of injuries, advised them to carry the injured to Muzaffarpur for better treatment. Acting on the advice of the doctor, it is alleged that while the injured was being taken to Muzaffarpur, and hardly they had reached a little distance from Runisaidpur, the injured succumbed to injuries. However, before the injured succumbed to the injuries, while fighting losing battle for his life, he disclosed complicity of the assailants and his associates to his neighbour Shibu Khan and Shankar Prasad. Motive that allegedly mobilised the assailants and their associates to execute killing of the deceased was past animosity. The fardbeyan of the brother of the deceased with these accusations was recorded by S.I. K.K. Singh, Officer Incharge of Mehsaul Chowk at the residence of the deceased at 16.30 hours on 22.2.2000, pursuant to which first information report was drawn up and investigation commenced, and in the process of investigation. Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prepared inquest report over the dead body of the deceased sent the dead body to mortuary for post-mortem examination and on receipt of post-mortem report, laid charge-sheet before the Court.
(3.) The Court in seisin of the proceeding of the case, took cognizance of the offence and after committal, appellants were charged for offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) alongwith Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants pleaded not guilty and denied charges and also claimed trial. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses including the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, family members of the deceased and also those who claimed some sort of familiarity with the incident. Defence too examined two witnesses to counter the allegations attributed to the appellants negativing presence of the two brothers of the deceased at the material time of incident at the place of occurrence. The appellants denied attributions made to them in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court, however, on meticulous appreciation of evidences placed on the record and also regard being had to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, while negativing contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, recorded verdict of guilt finding the appellant guilty under Section 302/34, IPC and while sentencing Binod Prasad and Mithilesh Thakur to death sentenced Dinesh Prasad to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of which he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Though Mithilesh Thakur suffered conviction also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, no separate sentence was recorded on this count. Reference of this case has been made to this Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against sentence of death passed by the trial Court in Sessions trial No. 196 of 2000/49 of 2001 rendered by First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi on 7th day of December, 2001. The appellants too aggrieved with the findings recorded by the Court below, preferred the instant appeals, as mentioned above and the trial Court has also made a reference, as noticed earlier, of the case for confirmation of death sentence awarded to two appellants.