URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Sec. 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the judgment of acquittal dtd. 23/11/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-11, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 351/2023 arising out of Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 547/2022 whereby Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted from the charge of Ss. 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22/11/2022 at about 5:30 PM, the informant Urmila Devi was at her door step, talking to her husband Pramod Rai. Whereupon, the accused persons, namely, Sanoj Kumar, Sahib Kumar, Avdesh Ram and Rooplal Rai came there and asked the informant's husband to accompany them. The informant asked her husband not to go with the accused persons, however, the accused persons insisted and the husband of the informant went with the accused persons. Thereafter, the informant called her father-in-law and brother-in-law, and all three of them went after the husband of the informant. The informant alleged that she saw two persons, namely, Rooplal Rai and Sahib Kumar holding her husband and the other two accused persons, namely, Sanoj Kumar and Awadhesh Rai shooting her husband. When the informant with her father-in-law and brother-in-law reached at the spot, all the four accused persons pointed a pistol at them as well. However, till that time, few passers-by started gathering upon hearing the sound of gun fire, and subsequently, all the four accused persons ran towards the east direction. The informant further alleged that a few days before the alleged occurrence, one Amika Rai had threatened to kill her husband.

(3.) On the basis of statement of the informant Sahibganj P.S. Case No. 547/2022 was instituted under Sec. 302/34 of I.P.C and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and investigation was taken up by the police. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Sec. 302/34 of I.P.C and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.