BARHOO RAUT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Bar-hoo Baut, resident of village Ramna, police station Jogapatti in the district Champaran is directed against his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as the Code and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him for the murder of Arjun Prasad Yadav in his cattle shed at village Ratahi, police station Thakraha in the district of Champaran in the night between 4th and 5th November, 1967.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief was that in the said night the appellant, who is Sarhu of the deceased was sleeping along with the deceased in the cattle shed. Next morning i.e. 5th of November, 1967 Ganeshia (P.W. 1), the mother of that deceased finding her son still sleeping went to the cattle shed in order to wake him up, as it was getting late, for giving fodder to the cattle. She called out her son Arjun Pd. Yadav and when she went inside the cattle shed she wanted to wake him up by touching his head but found him dead having cut injury on the neck. Thereupon she raised hulla and began to weap. Hearing the hulla several persons including Suraj Prasad (P.W. 2) arrived there and saw Arjun Pd, Yadav lying dead. The appellant was not found then in the cattle shed. According to the case of the prosecution the appellant had illicit connection with Kishori, wife of the deceased. On the date of occurrence Kishori was with her father Chander Ahir in village Ramna, in other words, in the village of the appellant The appellant is married to the daughter of Anant, the Sala of Chandar Ahir, the father-in-law of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the appellant and Chandar Ahir have houses at the same place. The further case of the prosecution was that P.W. 1, the mother of the deceased was anxious that Kishori should come and live with her husband. Therefore, a date for Rokshati was to be fixed by Chandar Ahir. The aooellant was also taking active part in not getting the date fixed for Rokshati. However, the deceased went to the father-in-law's place and got 7th of November. 1967 fixed as the date of Rokshati. The further case of the prosecution was that the appellant had come to the village of the deceased on Saturday the 4th of November, 1967 and he was found in the company of the deceased in the evening as well as in the night and toe was also sleeping with the deceased on the night between Saturday and Sunday. P.W. 1 when found her son dead after some time she went to the police station, Thakraha on the 5th of November, 1967 and at 3-30 P.M. lodged first information report. The said first information report was recorded by the officer-in-charge Sabhapati Singh (P.W. 27) who proceeded with the investigation, went to the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body and sent the dead body of deceased for post-mortem examination to Dr. K. N. Sinha. Civil Assistant Surgeon of Bettiah Hosoital (P.W. 25) who held post-mortem examination on the 6th of November. 1967. Thereafter P.W. 27 examined several witnesses and he also searched the house of the appellant. He did not find appellant in his house. In his absence Gamchha and Ganji were recovered from the house. Those articles contained blood like stains. He sent them for chemical examination and report. After having completed the investigation he submitted charge sheet against the appellant. After the usual inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant was committed to the court of Session. Before the Sessions Court as many as 27 witnesses including those, we have already mentioned, were examined by the prosecution to establish its case. It may be mentioned at the outset that none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution was eye-witness to the occurrence. Conviction of the appellant is solely based on the circumstantial evidence.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant, however, no witness was examined as a defence. His defence in brief was that he was innocent and he was falsely implicated.