BIJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE solitary appellant, Bijay Kumar Singh was put on trial in Sessions Trial No. 72 of 1992/69 of 1997 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi after being indicted of committing offence under Sections 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the judgment was ultimately delivered by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi on 07.08.2002 by which the appellant was held guilty of committing the two offences, he had been charged with. The appellant was heard on sentence on 08.08.2002 and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, else to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year after being convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years due to having been held guilty under Section 452. of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has filed the present appeal to challenge the correctness of the findings as regards his guilt and the appropriateness of the order of sentence passed upon him.

(2.) P .W.6 Hari Kishore Singh, as per his Fardbeyan (Ext.1) was sleeping in his Khalihan after having taken his meals in the night on 08.04.1991. He was awakened by this appellant at 11 P.M. and after he awoke, the appellant is alleged to have said to him that the informant was exceeding his limits and saying that dealt a blow with the knife which was in the hand of the appellant into the belly of P.W.6 the informant. The informant was deeply injured and raised alarms shouting that the appellant had stabbed him and was running away into the fields. He, any how collected himself and after putting his hand on the wound ambled up to his house and narrated the incident to his uncle Ram Akshay Singh (P.W.5) who also raised alarms upon which Nandan Singh (P.W.4), Laxman Singh (not examined), Ramchandra Singh (P.W.3) and Arun Kumar Singh (P.W.1) came there and finding the informant seriously injured brought him to Sadar Hospital, Sitamahi where he was treated.

(3.) THE Investigating Officer has not been examined and as such, it is not available from record as to how the investigation had proceeded but it appears sufficiently indicated by the record that after close of the investigation, the appellant was sent up for trial which resulted in the impugned judgment.