MANOJ DHANUK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.7.2001/25.7.2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 520 of 1998 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif by which the appellants have been convicted u/s. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further they have been convicted u/s. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE fardbeyan of Lalo Devi, wife of the deceased Om Prakash Lal was recorded by S.I. of Noorsarai Police Station on 19.1.98 at 7 P.M. in which the informant stated that on 19.1.98 at about 6 P.M. her husband Om Prakash Lal alongwith her son Golden Kumar had proceeded from their house for their iron shop situated at Main Road, Noorsarai. She and her mother -in -law Sudama Devi were at house. After some time her younger son came running and informed that his father has been done to death by Tulsi Halwai, Gajalwa Halwai, Chhotanwa Halwai and Manoj Dhanuk near the shop of Kishori Sao situated at Bhitari Bajar and he is lying there dead. On this information the informant alongwith her son Golden Kumar and mother -in -law Sudama Devi proceeded and came at the place of occurrence where she saw some persons assembled there and her husband lying dead. She saw that her husband had received injuries near the left ear and also at right jaw and the blood had fallen near the place of occurrence. The motive for the alleged occurrence is said to be that the accused Tulsi Halwai, Gajalwa Halwai and Chhotanwa Halwai had captured one of her shops which was vacated by her husband one month prior to the occurrence. It is alleged that all the accused persons with the help of Manoj Dhanuk had killed her husband. She has stated that the occurrence took place near about 6 P.M. and at that time shops adjacent to the place of occurrence were open and only after seeing the occurrence they had closed their shops due to fear.

(3.) THE prosecution in order to substantiate its case has examined altogether eight witnesses. P.W. 1 and 2 are the inquest witnesses. P.W. 3 is the brother and P.W. 6 is the son of the deceased who have been declared hostile. P.W. 4 is the son of the deceased and he is only eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 5 is the informant, who is wife of the deceased and a hearsay witness. P.W. 7 is the doctor who had conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, P.W. 8 is A.S. I. and Officer Incharge of Noorsarai Police station who has investigated the case. The defence has also examined two witnesses, D.W.1 and D.W. 2 who have shops adjacent to the place of occurrence.