INDRADEO PANDIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH prosecution was initially launched against six persons including appellants, proceeding pending before Court below, having abated as against Banwari Pandit on his death, appellants alone were put on trial, who suffered conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellants were sentenced also for a term of seven years for their conviction under Section 364, IPC, and as for their conviction under Section 201, IPC, they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years, with a rider that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) BASIC features of the prosecution case, which runs not in much details, can be discussed with brevity. Recitals made in the first information report lodged on behest of Jay Ram Pandit (PW 6) would suggest, inter alia, that on 23rd January, 1992, in evening hours, while Jay Ram Pandit was returning from Kharagpur Market, in the company of Manoranjan Prasad Vikel (PW 1) and Suresh Prasad (PW 2), he noticed his younger brother Sudhir Pandit near Barhauna orchard, who was on way to his house after having appeared at the examination at Kharagpur. Shortly thereafter, 6/7 persons emerged from nearby ambush, dragged Sudhir Pandey towards south and among them appellants were identified by them. They also chased him: When they came to village, informed the villagers about the incident. Though that day hectic searches were made by him in the company of the villagers but no trace of Sudhir Pandit could be found. However, the following day, in course of search, they found head of Sudhir Pandey severed from his trunk beside the sand of the river. They noticed blood spread on the sand. Pending litigation between the deceased and the appellants was shown to be offshoot of the incident.

(3.) DEFENCE of the appellants both before the Court below and this Court had been that of innocence and they ascribed their false implication due to pending litigation which had been acknowledged even by the prosecution party. However, defence has not chosen to examine any witness and trial Court on consideration of probative value of evidence and testimony of the witnesses, while rejecting plea of innocence of the appellants, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced them in the manner stated above.