BHADAL BARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned judgment and order dated 27-5-2002 passed by Fast Track Judge III (Additional Sessions Judge), Bhojpur, Ara in Sessions Trial Nos. 223 of 1992/140 of 2001, appellant No. 1, Bhadai Bari, has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and further he along with appellants No.2, Shiv Behari Bari and appellant No.3, Lal Behari Bari, has been convicted of the charge under Section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC for which they have been awarded R1 for life. No separate sentence under Section 302 IPC has been passed against appellant No. 1.

(2.) The prosecution case as contained in the Fardbeyan of Kusma Devi (PW3) recorded within four hours of the occurrence at her village, is to the effect that on 12-7-1991 at about 6.00 a.m. she was at her Darwaza tying the cattle and all the accused persons arrived in the field in front of her Darwaza and started with the work of cutting the ridge. This was protested by her husband, Tuntun Bari (the deceased). Exchange of hot words and abuses began and on the order of appellant No.2, Shiv Behari Bari, appellant No.3, Lal Behari Bari caught her husband and appellant No. 1, Bhadai Bari, assaulted her husband with Barc'hi which caused injury on the neck. Her husband fell down and uttered words to the effect that Bhadai has caused his death and died soon thereafter. According to the version in the Fardbeyan, the informant raised hulla upon which her sons, Surendra Bari (PW2) and Yogendra Bari (PW1) and some other co-villagers came running, to whom she disclosed the occurrence and all of them saw the accused persons running away. It is the prosecution case that all the three accused appellants are own brothers of the deceased and they had been cultivating the land in front of house of the deceased although the land belonged to late Doman Bari and the occurrence took place because of cutting of ridge between that land and the house of the deceased.

(3.) The materials on record disclose that after sending the dead body for postmortem examination, the police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against the three accused appellants. They pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them in course of trial. Their defence as appearing from the trend of cross-examination is that the deceased and the informant were engaged in sale of illicit liquor due to which undesirable elements used to come to their house and one of such elements might have killed the deceased during night hours. Two defence witnesses have also been examined to support such defence and to show that actually the dead body was noticed by the defence witnesses earlier at about 4.00 or 4.30 in the morning when hulla was raised by the informant. After trial, the accused appellants have been convicted, as noticed above.