SURAN SAH @ SURENDRA SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE appellant has filed the appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.1.2001/ 18.1.2001 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No. 263/98 whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has further been convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act but no separate sentence has been awarded.

(2.) ADLAHI Devi, the mother of the deceased, is informant. She gave her fardbeyan on 26.5.1998 at 6.15 p.m. before the Sub Inspector of Police of Chanp Bhaiyar Police Station that the previous day she had gone to cut grass in Chanp Behiyar east of her village. Her son Arjun Sah was grazing his cattle. Surendra Sah was grazing her Mung crops. She and her son made a protest on which Surendra Sah brought the cattle out of the field. On 26.5.1998 in the morning she had gone to Shripur and while returning in the evening she reached the village Karhaiya the villagers informed that her son had been shot at by Surendra Sah. She went to her house and learnt that her son Arjun Sah aged about 12 years had been killed in Chanp Behiyar by Surendra Sah. Her daughter Rupan Kumari, aged about 8 years, was present at the place of occurrence looking after her she - goats, and saw the occurrence. Harihar Sah, Ratan Sah and others had also seen the occurrence. The motive of the occurrence as alleged is that she and her son made protest against grazing their Mung crops by the appellant yesterday. On the aforesaid fardbeyan formal FIR was drawn, investigation was taken up and after completion of the investigation charge -sheet was submitted against the appellant. The case was committed and the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above. The defence of the appellant was that he was innocent and had falsely been implicated in the case. The defence has also examined one witness, Shambhu Sah, who stated that Arjun Sah fell from the back of the sne -buffalo and died.

(3.) THE death in this case is not in dispute. The dispute is with respect to commission of the offence by the appellant. There are three eye -witnesses in the case. PW 6 is informant and she has supported the prosecution case as a hearsay witness. In her evidence she stated she was not at her village at the time of occurrence. She had gone to Shripur at the relevant time. On return she learnt from her daughter, PW 2, that Surendra Sah dragged her brother Arjun from the back of the she -buffalo and fired at him causing his death. A day prior to the occurrence the appellant was grazing her Mung crops. She protested and on the next day her son was killed by him. Her fardbeyan was recorded by the police. In cross -examination the witness stated that on the day of occurrence she had gone to Shripur. She learnt about the occurrence from her daughter, PW 2. She had not seen the occurrence. She could not give the area and the boundary of her field in which the appellant had grazed the Mung crops.