NAGINA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE turned up on behalf of the appellants. On repeated calls similar was the position earlier also. Sri S.N. Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is present.

(2.) UNDER the circumstances, this court left with no other option but either to appoint Amicus Curiae to represent the interest of the appellants, but there is general experience that such process takes much time and the court's burden are not reduced or to proceed without any such representation, taking into consideration the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2013(2) PLJR 276(SC). It is thought proper to hear learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and to examine the record and Lower Court Records and decide the appeal on its own merit, accordingly, heard Sri Prasad.

(3.) THE prosecution case in short as revealed from fard-e-beyan of P.W.3 Maya Devi recorded at 2.00 A.M. on 8.4.1991 at her house by P.W.8, A.H. Khan, Sub-Inspector, Sikarpur Police Station, is that in the previous night while informant was sleeping in her house with her husband and six months old child at about 11.45 P.M., door was knocked and call was given for her husband, since police officials calling during query, door was broken and three miscreants entered into the room and two were standing outside, they took away the husband of the informant at the gun point, reason behind such occurrence was said to be the four months old dispute with one Upendra Sah relating to a piece of land, who also threatened to take him at task. Immediately after the occurrence informant raised alarm and Arbind Singh, Narayan Singh etc. arrived at the place of occurrence, police was informed, on arrival recorded the fard-e-beyan.