LAWS(PAT)-2015-7-13

NITYA NAND SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On July 03, 2015
NITYA NAND SHARMA Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER the judgment, dated 29.02.2008, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2007/39 of 2007, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Gaya, the sole accused -appellant, Nitya Nand Sharma, stands convicted under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and 386 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Following his conviction, under the order, dated 01.03.2008, the accused -appellant has been sentenced, under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. Following his conviction under Section 386 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the accused -appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. Following his conviction under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused appellants has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and for his conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, the accused appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as unfolded by the First Information Report, may, in brief, be described thus:

(3.) IN support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 8 (eight) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of denial and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.