BIJAY RAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant, having been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 3.10.1991 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 512 of 1991, has filed this appeal.

(2.) ON behalf of the appellant, it is briefly submitted that to establish the charge of murder, the prosecution, first, must prove that a person had been killed for which it would be necessary to prove the death and recovery of the dead body. His submission is that allegedly two persons i.e. Pannu and Salim are said to have been killed which fact is sought to be established by the evidence of PW 7 Bibi Jainab, the mother of Pannu, and PW 8 Bibi Jaibun, the wife of Salim. PW 7 in her chief claims that the body was carried to Puraini where a camp was established for the Muslims after the riots but what happened to body, thereafter, is not brought on record. There are no inquest reports. There are neither any post mortem reports nor any evidence of burial. In relation to PW 8, she admits that post mortem was conducted at Bhagalpur in respect of Salim but again there is neither any evidence of inquest nor any post mortem report whatsoever or any evidence of burial. He would, thus, submit that there is no evidence establishing death much less murder.

(3.) IT would be submitted that there is no explanation for this belated claim. It is only after the Government announced compensation packages for Muslim victims, this false claim was raised. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP, submitted that it was a case after the riots. The delay was natural and the court should not consider it unexplained. We have to see the evidence and consider the rival submissions in these regards.