RAM NARESH RAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals arise out of the same judgment passed by Sri Mohammad Shamim 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in S.Tr. No. 38/94 and as such, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The appellants faced trial for the commission of offence punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned trial court found both the abovenamed appellants guilty under section 302/34 I.P.C. and convicted them thereunder and sentenced both of them to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant Jagat Sah has further been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years thereunder. The sentences passed against the appellant Jagat Sah has been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution version which led to the trial of the appellants is that on 18.5.1986 at 11.00 P.M the informant Lalmati Devi was sitting at her door waiting for arrival of her son Balindra Sah (deceased). Her son alongwith his brother -in -law (Sala) Hazarilal Sah returned after attending a Barat. At that time the said Hazarilal Sah was playing on a loudspeaker on his cycle. The appellants Jagat Sah, Ram Naresh Rai and accused Tilak Sah (since dead), who were sitting at the door, objected to playing of loudspeaker and abused and the appellant. Jagat Sah threatened that if they did not stop blowing the loudspeaker he would shoot them. The appellant Ram Naresh Rai then exhorted to shoot the deceased to end all disputes and then the appellant Jagat Sah went near Balindra Sah and Ram Naresh Rai caught hold of him and Jagat Sah fired with his country made gun on the chest of Balindra Sah and he fell down and died.

(3.) BOTH the appellants were charged under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant Jagat Sah was further charged under section 27 of the Arms Act. Both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges. Their defence as gathered from the suggestions given to the P.Ws. is that they are innocent and the deceased was a criminal and he was murdered by some of his enemies and as no body had seen the occurrence, they were falsely implicated on account of land dispute.