HARI RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Cr.Appeal arises out of judgment of conviction dated Ist February, 1991 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No.56 of 1984/207 of 1987 by which the solitary appellant Hari Rai was held guilty of committing offence under Section 302 IPC while the other two accused, namely, Rameshwar Rai and Suren Rai were acquitted of the charges framed against them. The appellant was heard under Section 235 Cr.P.C on the 2nd day of February, 1991. and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life on account of having been convicted under Section 302 IPC. The appellant have come up before this Court in appeal to challenge the correctness of the findings and appropriateness of the order of sentence passed by the learned trial Judge.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 16.10.1983 at about 7.30 A.M. accused Rameshwar Rai was putting dung at the Darwaja of the deceased who was sitting there. The deceased protested which ensued into some exchange of hot words. Accused Rameshwar Rai called his sons Hari Rai and Suren Rai who came there with lathi and no sooner had they arrived, it was said, appellant Hari Rai dealt a lathi blow to the head of the deceased causing him to fall on the ground. It is stated that accused Rameshwar Rai snatched a wrist watch from the deceased while the accused persons were leaving the scene of occurrence.

(3.) THE defence of the accused persons is that they were innocent and had falsely been implicated in this case. During the course of trial, eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Reshma Devi, P.W.2 Rampati Devi, the two daughters of the deceased supported the prosecution case as an eye witnesses. P.W.6 Jagarnath Rai happens to be the son of the deceased and he also supported the prosecution story as an injured witness on account of having been assaulted by the accused persons. P.W.3 Phul Mohammad Mian whose house was situated just by the side of the place of occurrence and who appears having seen the occurrence as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 were tendered for cross -examination whereas P.W.4 Bahadur Rai was declared hostile. P.W.5 Baiju Lal Rai was a witness of formal character. He was an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who had recorded the fardbeyan of Baiju Lal Rai who had accompanied the deceased up to S.K.M.C.H., Muzaffarpur. P.W.8 Anil Kumar Jha was yet another police officer who had taken charge of investigation from P.W.9 Ram Janam Thakur who had not done anything in the investigation.