RUPAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-1-1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 221/1990/285/ 1991 by Sri Nirmalendu Kumar Kanth Niraj, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui, whereby the two appellants in this appeal, namely, Rupan Yadav and Baini Yadav alias Bagani Yadav have been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the Fardbeyan (Ext. 6) recorded on the statement of the informant. Mohammad Suddin (P.W. 1), is that the informant alongwith his father. Jan Mohammad Mian (the deceased) while proceeding from their house in village Tarakura towards Jhajha had reached in a forest, known as Drogwa forest at about p.m. on 14-10-1989, the informant sat down to urinate, while his father Jan Mohammad Mian proceeded ahead. When the informant got up after making water, he saw that the appellant. Bagani had caught hold of Jan Mohammad Mian, while the other appellant. Rupan Yadav was stabbing at him. When the informant saw this occurrence, the appellants chased him up to some distance. The informant went to a village Barasingha running and there he met his uncle, Sultan Mian and his cousin, Abbas Mian, who were manufacturing Bin at the premises of one Md. Halim. The informant told them about the occurrence and then he alongwith them came to the place of occurrence where Jan Mohammad Mian was found dead in pool of blood. When the informant started proceeding towards the police station for lodging information, a police officer happened to reach there and the Fardbeyan (Ext. 6) was recorded by the police officer (P.W. 5) Shyam Kumar Singh, on the basis of which the case was instituted by drawing up a formal first information report (Ext. 5).

(3.) The motive of the occurrence, according to the prosecution, was that the appellants had enmity with one Elahi Mian, who happened to by the Samdhi of the deceased and the appellants did not like that the deceased should meet Elahi Mian, and the appellants had previously threatened the deceased, asking him not to meet Elahi Mian.