INDAL NUT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jogapatti P.S. Case No. 13 of 1992 was registered under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, against Indal Nut, Kishori Sah, son of Sindhal Dhob (Garib @ Jitendra Dhobi) and three unknown others on the basis of the fard beyan given by one Bhola Sah (P.W.2) at about 1 P.M. on 13.2.1992. According to the informant at around 8 P.M. on the previous evening while he was sitting around the fire at his Darwaja the aforesaid persons arrived variously armed with guns, lathies and kattas and started assaulting him. Upon hearing his cries of alarm as the informant's son Yogendra Sah (P.W. 3) came out of the room indal Nut allegedly fired at him from the single Barrel gun in his hand which resulted in injuries to him. it is said that the hulla raised and the sound of gun fire attracted the attention of co-villagers and several of them arrived and they too were fired upon by the aforesaid assailants as a result whereof Kamal Thakur, Shiv Shankar Thakur, Chandrika Mahto, Baijnath Tiwari, Khelawan Mahto and Sita Ram Mahto sustained gun fire injuries. Seeing the crowd of villagers the assailants took to their heels and after retreating for some distance they resorted to firing at the villagers who attempted to give chase and as a result of the firing and out of fear the chase of the assailants was given up. The cause for the occurrence as recited in the fard beyan is that about a month back Indal Nut in the company of his accomplices had come to demand levy money of Rs. 20,000.00 from the informant which he had refused to give and four days prior to the occurrence the demand was again made but as the informant was not available at his home they had come on the previous evening and the occurrence as described in the fard beyan took place.

(2.) After due investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet against the three F.I.R. named accused under the very Penal provisions where under the case had been registered and on commitment of the case to the court of Sessions for trial charges on 19.5.1992 and they were put on trial. The accused persons denied the charges and took the plea of false implication. It further appears from their statements u/s. 313 Cr. P.C. that the additional defence plea was of false implication and the claim was on account of the fact that the informant had grabbed the land of a temple and the defence party were protesting against the same.

(3.) At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses including the informant (P.W. 2), his injured son, Yogendra Sah (P.W. 3), Dr. Pramod Kumar Tiwari (P.W.9) and the Investigating Officer of the case, S.I. Yogeshwar Shukla (P.W. 13). Several documents were also exhibited in support of the prosecution case. However, no evidence, either documentary or oral was sought to be placed on record by the defence.