DINESH SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The solitary appellant was put on trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. - I, Lakhisarai after being indicted of committing offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned trial Judge handed out the judgment of conviction to the appellant in Sessions Trial No. 575 of 2000 on the 20th day of May, 2005 by holding him guilty of committing the two offences he had been charged with. The appellant was heard on sentence on the 25th day of May, 2005 and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 27 Arms Act. While the sentences were directed to run concurrently upon the appellant, it was directed that if he had defaulted in making the payment of quantum of fine, he was to consolidately suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months on both the counts. The appellant appeals to this Court against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed upon him.

(2.) Before we come to the facts of the case, we want to notice some of the admitted facts. The appellant was the brother of P.W.3 Shiv Balak Sah, P.W.5 Shital Sah and P.W.11 Shambhu Sah, all of whom were sons of P.W.6 Dwarik Sah and P.W.4 Runa Devi. P.W.1 Sushila Devi and P.W.2 Shail Devi were married to the eldest of the four brothers, namely, Shambhu Sah. It is also undisputed that there had been a partition amongst the brothers' in respect of the joint properties belonging to the family quite some times prior to the incident, but still they were living under the same roof with individual occupation of rooms of the house which were allotted to each of the brothers in partition the witnesses were one in pointing out that the appellant had sold out his immovable properties and had probably fallen from the favour of his brothers and parents so much so that no one was interested in ensuring that the appellant had settled down in his life by marrying a lady. The appellant as such married the deceased who was not chosen by his family members. This evidence is undisputed, as appears from the evidence of many witnesses including the mother of the appellant P.W.4 Runa Devi who stated that the appellant had married out of his own free will the deceased Kanchan Devi and as may appear from the evidence of the informant and other witnesses, the family members were quite unhappy with the appellant for marrying himself to a lady of his choice, the deceased.

(3.) The allegation as contained in the fardbeyan (Ext-3) was that the witnesses who were examined in the case, were sleeping at the roof-top of the house while the present appellant Dinesh Sah and his wife were sleeping inside a room. The appellant had a three-month-old-daughter born from the wed-lock and the little child was also sleeping with the deceased and the present appellant. P.W.1 stated in her fardbeyan that at about 3 A.M. this appellant vigorously knocked at the door of the room, as a result of which P.Ws.1 and 2 both wives of P.W.11 woke up and they, thereafter heard the sound of gun shot emanating from the ground floor and it was stated that shot was fired by this appellant Dinesh Sah who escaped from the house. The little child also started weeping and P.W.1 asked her mother-in-law P.W.4 to look into it, upon which P.W.4 descended the stairs to come into the room where the incident had taken place to find that deceased Kanchan Devi aged about 20 years was lying dead and, accordingly, P.W.4 Runa Devi, the mother of this appellant and mother-in-law of P.W.1, told P.W.1 that it was this appellant who had killed the deceased Kanchan Devi and had run away from the place of occurrence.