TUNNA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant faced trial for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court found him guilty under the said section and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution version, as unfolded in trial, is that on 2.10.1992 at about 10.00 a.m. the informant was in his house. On the said date Durga Paath was to be held in his shop and in that connection his brother (deceased) had gone to the house for taking milk for the said Durga Paath. He parked the scooter in front of his house. In the meantime, appellant Tunna Mishra and five other co-accused,of the case came running there from eastern side and the appellant fired on the deceased hitting his chest. The brother of the informant fell down and thereafter one Sachchu and Binod Kumar alias Battu also fired their Pistols which hit the back of the deceased. His brother died there, yet the informant immediately took him to the Pilgrim Hospital where his brother was declared dead. The further case of the prosecution is that prior to the alleged occurrence before Vishwakarma Puja the appellant along with others had demanded Rangdari tax to the tune of rupees one lac and had threatened the deceased with dire consequences if the said amount was not paid for which the informant had filed a case in Kotwall Police Station. Again few days before the occurrence i.e. on 17.9.1992 all the four persons including the appellant (named in the fardbeyan) had come to the shop of the informant with Pistols and two of them were caught at the spot and were handed over to the police by the informant for which a case was filed in the police station. Accordingly to the prosecution, on account of non- payment of demand of Rangdari, the miscreants committed the murder.

(3.) The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on 2.10.1992 at 11.00 a.m. in the Pilgrim hospital by the SI of Kotwal Police Station. The usual investigation followed and the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and others. It may be mentioned here that the present case was registered against six persons and from perusal of the record it would appear that four of them died in police encounter prior to framing of charge and the fifth one died in course of trial. Hence the appellant alone faced the trial.