BHUALI RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arising out of the same judgment and order dated 20.1.2001 passed by XIth. Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 1544 of 1994, convicting and sentencing both the appellants to undergo RI for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 6.7.1990 at about 7. p.m. informant Binod Bhar PW 6 along with his deceased father was returning to his house from a flour mill after grinding wheat. By that time his father had already taken some toddy at the 'Chatti' of one Gorakh Manjhi. In the way the informant met his uncle Dhrub who was returning on his bicycle and informant then put the flour on his bicycle for carrying the same to his house and thereafter, when informant and his father proceeded for some distance, they found both the appellants and Suraj Pandey were moving some distance ahead from them and when informant and his father reached near Doudpur Orchard of one Hira Giri, he saw Suraj Pandey telling something to both appellants and asked them to assault the informant and his father. Both the appellants started scuffling and they took out knives and started assaulting the father of informant. Informant raised alarm and called Suraj Pandey to help him but Suraj Pandey, in the meantime, left the place for his house and both the appellants in presence of the informant assaulted his father with knives. Seeing the critical condition of his father and also threatening by appellants that this was the result for not working for Suraj Pandey, informant ran towards his house where he told his uncle Dhrub Bhar about the occurrence and then he ran towards the police station and in the way he found that his father had died. At police station informant narrated the occurrence and FIR Ext. 3 was recorded. In the FIR informant has stated that one month prior to the occurrence, Suraj Pandey had given threatening that if they would not work for him they would face the consequences. Although FIR was recorded against both the appellants and against Suraj Pandey but after investigation Suraj Pandey was not sent up but charge-sheet against both the appellants was submitted under Section 302/34 IPC, cognizance of the was taken and case was committed to the Court of session where charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against both the appellants. After trial both the appellants were found guilty under Section 302/34 IPC and were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for life.

(3.) The case of appellants, as it appears from the trend of cross examination of prosecution witnesses is of complete denial of charge and their false implication. No witness on behalf of the defence was examined.