CHANARIK YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four appellants were tried by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.III, Jehanabad by being charged with commission of offenses under Sections 307/34 and 452 IPC in Sessions Trial No.99 of 1995/89 of 2002. The learned trial Judge by judgment dated 25.06.2002 found the appellants guilty of committing the offences they had been charged with and after hearing them under Section 235 of the Cr.P.C., directed each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 307/34 IPC. As regards the conviction of the appellants under Section 452 IPC, the learned trial Judge chose not to award any separate sentence on any of the appellants.

(2.) AT about 12.30 A.M. in the night intervening 7th -8th May, 1994, P.W.1 Ashok Yadav and his mother, P.W.6 Dhanrajia Devi were sleeping in their Angan(courtyard). It was stated by P.W.1 in his fardbeyan ( Ext -1) that he picked up the sound of stomping of feet and was woke up with his mother. By the time they arose from their sleep, the accused persons had descended down into the Angan from the ceiling of the house. It is stated that the appellant Pratap Yadav, detonated a bomb by targeting the mother of P.W.1, i.e., P.W.6. The mother and son attempted to run away, but the accused persons captured the lady (P.W.6) and put her down on the ground and started giving blows with garasa. Finding himself in a dangerous situation, he ran away from his courtyard by unlatching the entry doors and started raising alarms, upon which, Krishna Kumar Mandal (P.W.7) started firing shots from his house while other villagers, like, Ram Bachan Yadav (P.W.5), Jitendra Yadav (P.W.3) and others ran towards the house of the informant, seeing whom the accused persons ran away from the scene of occurrence, but giving warning to P.W.1 that if the mother and son went out of the village, they would be killed. It was claimed by the informant that the witnesses had seen and identified others also while they were retreating back from the scene of occurrence.

(3.) AS regards motive for commission of the offence, it was stated that the dispute in respect of immovable properties was the cause for committing the offence.