DASHRATH SAHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.9.2001 and order dated 24.9.2001 passed, by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 168/97 convicting and sentencing the sole appellant Dashrath Sah to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and R.I. for 2 years under Section 27 of Arms Act but ordering both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of prosecution as disclosed in the fardbeyan is that on 17.2.1997 at about 4 p.m. Sanjeet Rajak aged about 12 years, son of informant Rashmani Devi (PW 8) came to his house from school and after some time he left the house for going to Agapur Kothi Pethiya. Some time thereafter Guddu Rajak (PW 3) came running to the house of informant and informed her that appellant Dashrath Sah had shot her son dead and appellant fled away. Informant went running to Pethiya where she found her son lying dead on road with fire arm injury on his chest. She started crying there and in fardbeyan she claimed that a number of persons had seen the occurrence and for some dispute appellant committed the murder of her son. On the basis of fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of informant formal FIR (Ext. 5) under Section 302, IPC and 27 of Arms Act was drawn and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC and 27 of Arms Act, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of session where charges under the aforesaid heads were framed and on denial of charges by appellant he was put on trial and was found guilty and. was convicted and sentenced as indicated above.

(3.) The case of appellant as it appears from the evidence of defence witnesses examined and from the trend of cross-examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution is that a cow of Guddu Rajak (PW 3) had entered the field of appellant and had damaged his crop by grazing for which a panchayati was held in which Guddu Rajak was fined a sum of Rs. 10/- and for this reason Guddu Rajak got the appellant implicated in this case. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defence.