GAYA SHAUKAT MIAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Shaukat Mian was convicted under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter to be referred to as 'the Code') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000.00 in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years under sec. 394 of the Code and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Shortly stated the prosecution case is that one Md. Salim Khan on 31.1.1994 at 1.45 pm gave fardbeyan before S.I., Shri C.N. Jha of Kotwali Police Station in emergency ward of Pilgrim Hospital, Gaya that he was working as booking clerk in Paradise Cinema, Gaya and on that day he was going to deposit booking amount Rs. 41,486.00 along with another staff named Akhori Prabhat Ranjan to Punjab National Bank, Tekari Road, Gaya by Rickshaw. At about 1.00 pm when their rickshaw reached in front of Water Tower of Pilgrim Hospital on A. N. Road, two miscreants armed with Pistol stopped the rickshaw and snatched the cloth bag containing Rs. 41,486.00 from the hand of the informant Md. Salim and when Akhori Prabhat Ranjan protested, one of the miscreants fired shot which caused serious injury on his chest and thereafter the miscreants sat on a Scooter which was standing and fled away towards northern side of G.B. Road. It is said that the scooter had no number. The informant raised alarm and chased the miscreants. People carried Akhori Prabhat Ranjan on a Cot to Hospital where he died during course of treatment. The informant gave descriptions of the miscreants. On the basis of fardbeyan the Police registered Kotwali P.S. Case No. 27/ 94 dated 31.1.1994 and after completing investigation, submitted chargesheet no. 67/94 on 1.6.1994 against Sonu Mian and Bablu Mian showing appellant Md. Shaukat as absconder. It appears that the appellant was remanded in this trial with the result mentioned above.

(3.) No witness on behalf of the appellant was examined during trial. The defence of the appellant is total denial of the alleged occurrence and falsely implicated in the case.