BILASH CHAUDHARY @ BILASH BHUIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. He has been further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case as disclosed from the fardbeyan of the informant Munarik Nut is that on 23.8.1984 at about 12.00/1.00 a.m. he and his family members were sleeping in their house. Suddenly he woke up at the sound of knocking at his door. He enquired who was at the door, then he heard the sound of accused Janki Chaudhary who asked the informant to open the door. The informant further inquired as to what was the matter and why he had come, upon this accused Janki Chaudhary told that the police had come, therefore, he was knocking the door. The informant started raising alarm and on his alarm his brother Ramphal Nut woke up and came out from his room. He saw that accused Bilash Chaudhary @ Bilash Bhuin was standing there. He flashed his torch and fired on Ramphal Nut. He received injury on his right arm and fell down. It has also been stated that thereafter Darshan Mahto and Sheo Ratan Mahto both of his village were talking that they have finished their work and the victim has died so they should depart from the place of occurrence. It has further been stated that Darshan Mahto had told that let the victim die because his dues were not paid. Thereafter all the appellants fled away towards the north through lane. On the alarm of the informant villagers gathered and informant narrated about the occurrence to them. It has been stated that the informant identified the accused persons in torch light while peeping through the gap of the door. When the informant was raising alarm, accused Janki Chaudhary, who was having a pasuli in his hand was abusing the informant and was insisting to open the door. He has stated that his brother who was in his room has no planks. It has also been stated that the case of the occurrence was that amount of money of Darshan Mahto which was taken by the informant and which the informant had declined to pay, because the informant had cultivated the land of Darshan Mahto and the crops therein were cut and harvested by Darshan Mahto himself. The informant was insisting to Darshan Mahto to pay him the post of the harvested crops. This was the cause of occurrence.

(3.) The Jardbeyan of the informant was recorded in Khizersarai hospital on the basis of which FIR was registered. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions.