BABOOLAL MAHATO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant herein Baboolal Mahto stands convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act with rigorous imprisonment for life and no separate sentence passed for offence under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act by its judgment dated 18.02.1994 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1992/05of 1992 and, therefore, this appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution as made out from the fardbeyan that Dafadar Ram Chandra Choudhary who has been examined as PW 5 on 05.05.1991 while he was performing his duties in Lakhraon Chatti at about 2.30 P.M. received information that accused Baboolal Mahto has killed his wife by firing shots from a fire-arm. Accordingly, Ram Chandra Choudhary on hearing this news went to the village and on going to the house of accused Baboolal he found that there was a thatched palani on the side of his house and the dead body of his wife was lying on a gunny bag on the ground and a country-made pistol was kept on the chest and under the grip of right hand of the deceased. Ram Chandra Choudhary kept watch on the body and sent intimation to the police authorities. The police personnel reached the spot. The statement of Ram Chandra Choudhary was recorded as Ext.1 /1 and after investigation the appellant was put to trial and has been convicted.

(3.) In the trial in question 8 witnesses were examined. From the statement of witnesses that have come on record it is seen that PW 8 Lakhsman Prasad is a formal witness and has proved recording of the F.I.R. Ext.3 and the Case Diary Ext.4. PW 7 is Dr. Ram Bihari Singh who has conducted post mortem examination of the deceased and submitted the report Ext. 2. PW 6 is Anand Tiwari and PW 5 is Ram Chandra Choudhary, the informant and Dafadar. PW 4 is Indar Tiwari, PW 3 is Sheoji Tiwari and PW 1 is one Triloki and PW 2 Baliram Mahto are residents of the village in question. DW 5 Ram Chandra Choudhary, Dafadar, is the person who recorded the fardbeyan. He is not a witness to the incident. He has not seen the incident and his evidence is only as to what was heard by him while he was in his office which instigated him to go to the spot and summoned the police. His evidence does not prove the guilt of the appellant as it is nothing but some information received by him and he even does not say as to how and in what manner this information was received by him. He only speaks that he has heard but has no personal knowledge about the incident. PW 1 Triloki Nath is said to have come to the spot even though he is declared hostile but he speaks about meeting the accused in his cycle repairing shop at 6 A/.M. in the morning. This witness also does not help the case of the prosecution as he does not say anything about how and in what manner the incident took place. PW 3 Sheoji Tiwari speaks about seizure of the various documents. PW 4 Indar Tiwari is also a formal witness.