RAJENDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeals have been filed under Sec. - 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dtd. 13/6/2018 and order of sentence dtd. 14/6/2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Araria, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1151/2012, T.R. No.64/2017 (arising out of Bhargama P.S. Case No. 43/2011) by which all the appellants have been convicted and appellant/convict Rajendra Yadav has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.50,000.00 (fifty thousand) for the offence punishable under Sec. - 302 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the convict will have to undergo further one year imprisonment. He has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.5000.00 (five thousand) for the offence punishable under Sec. - 27 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, he will have to under further imprisonment for six months. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Appellants/convicts Badri Yadav, Kailash Yadav and Mithilesh Yadav @ Akhilesh Yadav have been sentenced to undergo rigorous for life with a fine of Rs.50,000.00 (fifty thousand) each for the offence punishable under Sec. -302/149 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the convicts will have to further undergo one year imprisonment. They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months with a fine of Rs.5000.00 each for the offence punishable under Sec. -148 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, they will have to undergo further imprisonment for three months each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) At the outset, it is relevant to note that Mr. Amarnath Jha, learned counsel, earlier appearing for the appellants, states that he has already given no objection to the appellants. However, nobody has filed appearance in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 931 of 2018, which is pending for hearing since long. The present appeal is of the year 2018 and out of three appeals, in one appeal, appellant/convict is in custody for more than 12 years. Therefore, we have no option, but to proceed with the matter and, therefore, we have requested Mr. Sandeep Kumar Pandey to assist the Court in the matter and, with his consent, he is appointed as Amicus Curiae.

(3.) Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Roy, Manoj Kumar and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsels for the appellant, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the respondent State and Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, learned counsel for the informant (in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.940 of 2018, Mr. Kumar Dhirendra, assisted by Mr. Diwanshu Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the respondent State (in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.880 of 2018 and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 931 of 2018).