ASHOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case are tell -a -tale. Allegedly appellant in the night of 21st September, 1999 knocked door of the house of Geeta Devi, pushed her inside and having gained his access in inner appartment of the house, tried to outrage her modesty and when victim grappled with him, fired shot on her chest causing injury, and made good his escape with others who had accompanied him. The informant of the case is none else but the victim. As usual, investigation had followed after institution of the police case at behest of the victim and the police on conclusion of investigation laid charge -sheet before the Court below. Though appellant suffered conviction under Sections 307,354, 452/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, while no sentence was awarded to him on other counts, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of nine years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - for his conviction under Section307 of the Indian Penal Code, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. At trial, the State examined nine witnesses who are the victim, doctor, Police Officer and host of other witnesses

(2.) THE defence of the appellant both before the Court below ancVthis Court had been that of innocence and he ascribed his false implication. Other defence of the appellant was that Geeta Devi had illicit relation with one Yogendra Sah and hence false implication. The Trial Court, however, on marshalling evidences available before it while rejecting plea of innocence of the appellant, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced him in the manner stated above.

(3.) CHHOTE Lal Sah (PW 2) received message about Geeta Devi sustaining fire arm injury by appellant, at Calcutta and shortly after he visited village ''collected details about the incidents from none else but Anil Kumar Sah who was an eye -witness. Ramesh Lal (PW 4) stated to have rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing sounds of firing, when he noticed Geeta Devi smeared with blood and she had raised alarm about appellant having fired shots on her. Attention of this witness had been drawn by the defence about statement rendered by him before police, being 2/ 1d /2i0ffe 13 r e Pn at gewh 86 ere he did not make parallel statement about Geeta Devi stating complicity of appellant before him. The Police Officer examined by State would, however, refute asertion made by witness about complicity of the appellant having been disclosed to him by Geeta Devi when Sheoji Sah (PW 5), husband of the victim lady, was at Punjab, and he too had rushed to village on receipt of information about his wife having sustained lire arm injury by the appellant. He rushed to PMCH where he got tales about the incident from none else but his wife about appellant having fired shots on her in the night of incident.