LAWS(PAT)-2013-4-120

AKHELESH SAHI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 22, 2013
Akhelesh Sahi Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE appellant Akhilesh Sahi who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life vide judgment dated 11.6.1990, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 1986 has challenged the judgment impugned by way of instant appeal. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as per fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of Abdul Ajiz (P.W. 8) recorded on 19.4.1984 at 10.30 P.M. at Village Road Hichra P.S. Kanti disclosing therein that on the same day while he was grazing his she buffalo south to the village road, he saw Dineshar Shahi of Village Shyampur coming. At that very time Shambhu Mahto as well as Fuldeo Sahni of village Shyampur came from western side on same bicycle. Fuldeo Sahni was driving the bicycle. When both of them met, they got down and began to gossip. Then, thereafter, two bicycles came from eastern side. One was occupied by Rajiv Shahi and Sanjay Shahi while the other was occupied by Akhilesh Shahi. After seeing Shambhu, Fuldeo and Dineshar they also got down. Thereafter, Akhilesh Shahi said that he is the person over which Rajiv Sahi took out pistol and fired causing injury to Shambhu Mahto. Dineshar Shahi and Fuldeo Sahni began to raise alarm. He also rushed raising alarm. All the three escaped therefrom. Shambhu Mahto died instantaneously. So many persons of village Dariyapur came who unsuccessfully attempted to apprehend all the three but they managed to escape. Bhikhar Ram, Parichan Ram, Ajmal Miyan, Nazir and other were cited as an eye witnesses to the occurrence.

(2.) AFTER registration of Kanti P.S. Case No. 66 of 1984, the investigation commenced and after concluding the same, charge sheet was submitted against all the three namely Rajiv Shahi, Sanjay Kumar Shahi and Akhileshar Shahi. Rajiv Shahi, the assailant got his case bifurcated on the background of being declared as a juvenile while the trial against Sanjay Kumar Shahi and Akhileshar Shahi proceeded and concluded by the judgment impugned whereby Sanjay Kumar Shahi was acquitted while appellant Akhileshar Shahi has been convicted in a manner as stated above.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel of the appellant while challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court has submitted that there happens to be wrong procedure followed during appreciation of the witnesses so far appellant is concerned because of the fact that the case of the appellant more or less, lies on similar footing than that of Sanjay Shahi since acquitted. So, in the aforesaid background the learned trial court should have also acquitted the appellant. In likewise manner it has also been submitted that the learned trial court should have come to the conclusion that prosecution had failed to substantiate its case against the appellant in the background of the fact that no specific allegation has been attributed against him. It has also been submitted that prosecution has failed to place relevant evidence on the score of attracting Section 34 of the IPC for which pre -meeting of mind was necessary and that too to the extent that aforesaid meeting of mind was for the purpose of commission of occurrence.