SATISH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by sole appellant, is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 02.06.2015 and the order of sentence dated 04.06.2016 passed by learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in S.T. No. 442 of 2004. The learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty under Sections 302 IPC, 25(1-B)(a) and 26(i) and 27 of the Arms Act. The maximum sentence imposed on him was under Section 302 IPC wherein he was directed to suffer R.I. for life. For other charges, he was convicted for lesser period of sentence with fine having default clause.

(2.) The prosecution case germinated out of the fardbeyan (Ext.5) lodged by P.W.7 on 15.05.2004 at 2 a.m. at the door of his house recorded by the Officer-in-charge, Barauni Police Station (P.W.13) alleging that on the intervening night of 14/15th of May, 2004, his sister (deceased) was going to be married. Several people had assembled at his house. The bridegroom had also arrived. Varmala was to be performed for which the bride (informant's sister) had come out from the room onto the veranda where the bridegroom was also standing when suddenly the appellant, who is related to the informant, appeared from the northern door of the veranda and fired twice at the deceased from his pistol. The first shot hit the victim on her shoulder whereas the second shot hit her in the abdomen. The commotion ensued thereafter but the appellant was apprehended with the weapon of assault. The injured was carried to hospital but on way she succumbed to the injuries sustained by her whereafter they returned back to his house. The Police, on receiving an information about the occurrence, immediately reached the scene of occurrence and his fardbeyan was recorded. The appellant, who was apprehended with the pistol by the informant and other witnesses present there was handed over to the Police. The empty cartridge and front part of bullet were seized under a memo by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) in presence of P.W.3 and P.W.5. The seizure memo, prepared in this regard, is Ext.6 (production-cum-seizure memo). The inquest proceeding was carried by the I.O. at the veranda itself in presence of P.W.1 and P.W.4. The inquest report is Ext.7. The body of the victim was dispatched for post mortem. P.W.10 who was then posted as the Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai held the autopsy on 15.05.2004 at 9.50 a.m. and submitted the post-mortem report (Ext.4). On conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid whereon cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. On transfer, the case came on the file of the learned Trial Court where charges were framed, read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty. The defence of the appellant was complete denial of his implication in the crime.

(3.) In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution examined 16 witness. It is apt to give resume of the witnesses. P.W.1 (Ajeet Kumar Singh) is a neighbour/co-villager of the informant and an eye witness to the occurrence. He is also a witness to the inquest report (Ext.7). P.W. 2 (Susant Kumar Singh) is a relation of the deceased and an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.3 Rajendra Prasad Singh is a co-villager. He has narrated the prosecution case as an eye-witness. He is also a witness to the seizure of the pistol and cartridges etc. which the appellant was possessed of on the date and time of occurrence. He has proved his signature (Ext.2) on the production-cum-seizure memo. P.W.4 Dharmendra Kumar Singh is another co-villager and also an attesting witness to the fardbeyan. In his examination-in-chief, he fully supported the prosecution case. He has identified his signature (Ext.1/1) on the inquest report. P.W.5 Awadesh Kumar Singh is the brother of the deceased and an eye witness to the occurrence. He is also a witness to the production-cum-seizure memo prepared by the I.O. He has proved his signature on the said memo (Ext.2/1). He supported the prosecution case as an eye-witness and the implication of the appellant in the crime. P.W.6 Bishundeo Singh is the father of the deceased. He too has supported the prosecution case as an eye witness. P.W.7 Sujeet Kumar Singh is the informant and full brother of the deceased Nutan Kumari. He has also narrated the prosecution case as an eye witness to each and every incident that occurred on that date. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan (Ext. 3/1). P.W.8 (Chandradeo Singh) is a co-villager and an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.9 (Niranjan Kumar) is cousin brother of the deceased and deposed as an eye witness. P.W.10 Dr. Gopal Mishra is the doctor who held the autopsy on the dead body and submitted the post-mortem report (Ext.4). P.W.11 (Sulochana Devi) is the mother of the deceased and also an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.12 (Pukari Devi) is mausi of the deceased. She has narrated the prosecution case as an eye witness. P.W.13 Syed Md. Khursheed is the Officer-in-charge of Barauni Police Station and the I.O. of the case who conducted the investigation and laid the charge-sheet. According to him on receiving a rumour of killing of the bride during the wedding function, he immediately reached the place of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan. He has proved the fardbeyan (Ext.5). After the case remanded by this Court in appeal, the prosecution examined P.W.14 Deonath Singh, A.S.I. of Police who produced on the order of the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai the material exhibits (Ext.(I) (country made pistol) Ext. (II) (empty cartridge) and Ext. (III) (front portion of cartridge) seized by the I.O. of the case from the place of occurrence. P.W.15 Dhirendra Anand Murti is the A.S.I. of Police who has proved the Sanha No. 232 dated 15.05.2004 (Ext.8) which was recorded by the I.O. before proceeding to the place of occurrence on the relevant day. P.W.16 Md. Sakeel Ahmad is A.S.I. of Police who has proved the sanction order (Ext.9), the report of the Sergeant Major (Ext.10), who examined the recovered pistol and cartridge(s) and Ext.11 which is letter written by the Retired Sergeant Major and the case diary (Ext.13). On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he simply abjured the guilt.