DUKHAN RAI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eight accused persons charged variously, were put on trial by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 357 of 1988. The present appellant Dukhan Rai had been distinctly charged under Ss. 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. While seven accused persons were acquitted of all the charges including that under Ss. 147 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, the present appellant was held guilty of committing the offence under Ss. 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 30.9.1993 passed by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge heard the appellant on sentence on 1.10.1993 and directed the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant to challenge the correctness of the findings as regards his guilt and the appropriateness of the sentence. The prosecution case is contained in the fardbeyan of Hari Lal Rai (PW -8) (Ext. -3) in which he stated that on 25.6.1986 at 8 A.M., he along with his father Sant Lal Rai (the deceased of the case). Sukni (PW -5), his mother, brother -in -law Kuchali Rai (PW -1) and his step -father Chhotai Rai (not examined) besides his villagers Butan Rai (PW -7), Kartik Rai (not examined), Holi Lal Rai (PW -6), Bokai Rai (not examined) and Mahabir Rai (PW -4) was constructing a house on 15 decimals on land pertaining to Khata No. 92, Khesara No. 210 which had been allotted to him by the Government of Bihar five years ago. Some part of it had been constructed and at that time, Kanak Lal Biswas (PW -2) had come there while on way to another place and sat down there when all the accused persons including the present appellant Dukhan Rai came there armed with lathi, farsa, sword, tangi, bow and arrows and dabiya and attacked the informant and witnesses. It was stated that this appellant Dukhan Rai shot an arrow at deceased Sant Lal Rai which hit him just above the chest in his neck. The accused Bhadai Santhal gave a blow with Kulhari on the neck of the deceased as a result of which the deceased Sant Lal Rai fell down. The said accused Bhadai Santhal ran away with the trident which the deceased used to carry with him. P.W. 5 Sukni, the mother of the informant, was also injured by an arrow shot by accused Domai Santhal in her hand and Barki Majhian, the accused, also gave a Hasua blow to PW -5. Barki Majhian dealt another blow with Kulhari on the informant who was hit just by the side of his left ear and he became injured. Manju Santhal also shot an arrow which hit the informant in his back and caused a superficial injury to him. Other accused persons, men and women, assaulted the informant, his mother and Kuchali Rai (PW -1) with lathi causing injuries to them. On the Hulla raised by the injured persons people assembled there and seeing them, the accused persons ran away towards their respective houses. The villagers, however, arrested Manju Santhal, Barki Majhian and Talamai Majhian while others succeeded in running away from there and the arrested accused confessed their guilt before the police. The three arrested accused persons were handed over to the police.

(2.) On the basis of Ext. -3, the FIR of the case was drawn up and the investigation was taken up by S.I. Dilip Kumar Ojha, but what we find is that the investigating officer had not been examined. However, what appears from the record of the case is that the injured witnesses were sent to the doctor, like, PW -10 Dr. Gaya Prasad Diwakar, who examined them and issued the injury certificates. The investigating officer also held inquest upon the dead body of deceased Sant Lal Rai and prepared the inquest report in presence of the witnesses. A copy of the inquest report finds placed on the paper book at page -69. On close of the investigation, the accused persons were sent up for trial which ended the judgment impugned herein.

(3.) Smt. Archana Sinha, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the solitary appellant referred to us the evidence of different witnesses and mainly argued that the oral testimony of witnesses was not in consonance with the medical evidence of PW -9 Dr. Kamal Krishan Das who had held post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Sant Lal Rai. Thus, what we find is that the decision of this appeal lies in a very narrow compass.