CHAND SURIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant herein has been found quality of the offences under Sections 32 and 307 IPC. The Trial Court has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life without specifying for which offence he has/been so sentenced. We will proceed on the basis that since the appellant has been found quality of the offence under Section 302, IPC, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment under that section and no sentence has been passed separately for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla, tried the appellant in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1990 and by his judgment and order dated 8th January, 1992, convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above. We may only notice one other fact that one Paul Surin was also an accused in the case, but since he absconded, he was not put up for trial with the appellant herein.

(2.) The occurrence giving rise to the present appeal is said to have taken place on the night of 2nd of June, 1989 in which two persons were killed and P.W. 6 Pritwanti received serious injuries. The informant P.W. 4 Mandhin Surin was the daughter-in-law of deceased Salomi Surin and brother-in-law of deceased Nixon Surin. She is also the sister-in-law of the injured witness Pritwanti, P.W. 6.

(3.) The persecution case is that an occurrence took place at about 12 in the mid-night and the First Information report was report lodged at the village of occurrence at 4 P.M. on 3.6.1989, after the Investigating Officer came to know of the occurrence and came to the village of occurrence, where he recorded the report of P.W. 4 Mandhin Surin.