PRADEEP CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SIX accused persons, namely, Pradeep Choudhary (appellant), Manoj Kumar Choudhary, Babu Lal Choudhary, Dilip Choudhary, Dinesh Choudhary and Chameli Devi were put on trial by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger after being indicted of committing the offences under sections 147 and 302/149 of the I.P.C. out of whom the present appellant Pradeep Choudhary was specifically charged for committing the offence under section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 2nd August, 2002 and all the accused persons were convicted of the charge under section 302/149 I.P.C. and as regards present appellant, his conviction was recorded under section 304 part -II I.P.C. After being heard on sentence the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in case of having defaulted in making payment of fine the appellant was to suffer rigorous imprisonment additional for a period of one year. The appellant Pradeep Choudhary challenges the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.

(2.) AS per prosecution case, it was the day of Holika Dahan as appears from the fardbeyan (Ext.2) as also from the evidence of P.W.4 Anil Kumar Sao. The Informant stated that he along with the deceased and others were present at the site of Holika Dahan when five accused persons named in the F.I.R. except the lady accused Chameli Devi, came there armed with Pijouna (a hard and blunt wooden article like a Lathi or a Danda which is used by toddy tapers for sharpening their cutting sickle) and asked from the Informant as to why he had put the wood belonging to them into fire. The Informant and his companions stated that they did not know anything about it, upon which the accused persons started giving blows with Pijouna and Lathi to the Informant and others. As regards present appellant, he was specifically alleged to have given blow with Pijouna to the head of the deceased Sanjay Kumar, who fell unconscious. The Informant stated that other accused persons had given blows with Lathi, as a result of which, the Informant was injured on his arms and ribs and Anil Kumar Sao (P.W.4) was hit on his forehead and legs.

(3.) WHAT appears from the evidence of P.W. 9 Dr. Sudhir Kumar is that there could not be any doubt that the deceased had succumbed to the fatal injuries which had been inflicted upon him. P.W. 9 during autopsy had found the following antemortem injuries: -