MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant is charged for having caused death of his father-in-law on the fateful noon of 17/11/2008. The learned Trial Court, on appraisal of evidence produced at the trial, held him guilty under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine with default clause and seven years of imprisonment with fine having default clause vide judgment of conviction dtd. 20/4/2015 and order of sentence dtd. 30/4/2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Patna City (Patna) in Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2010, arising out of Alamganj P.S. Case No. 275 of 2008. The learned Trial Court has not clarified the imprisonment so imposed upon the appellant is simple imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution case at the trial is that on the relevant date at about 12.15 or so the appellant called the deceased on his mobile phone later on the base phone and asked him to come to the City Court for the compromise in the pending case which was lodged earlier by his mother-in-law (PW-2) for having assaulted with knife to her as well as the wife (P.W.1) of the appellant. On getting such repeated requests from the appellant, the deceased left the house at about 1' o'clock in the day to go to the City Court. The informant being the wife of the deceased (PW-2) also followed him. As the deceased walking ahead of the informant reached near the Chaitanya temple in the lane, the appellant, all on a sudden, appeared in front of the informant and without loss of time fired from behind once on the deceased who upon receiving the injury dropped on the lane. The appellant having discarded the weapon of assault at the place of occurrence escaped. The information was promptly given to the Police Station whereafter, as per the prosecution case, the Investigating Officer (I.O) (PW-7) arrived at the place of occurrence, recorded the 'Fardbeyan' of the informant (PW-2), made inquest report of the dead body, seized the pistol lying close by as well as the mobile phone from the pocket of the deceased under seizure memo (Exhibit -9). These seizures were made in presence of PWs 1 and 4. Be it noted that as per the prosecution case PW-1 being the wife of the appellant as well as PW-4 Shuklamber Jha had also arrived at the place of occurrence. Upon receiving the post-mortem report and recording the statement of the witnesses, the I.O found the case true and laid the charge sheet against the appellant whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was later committed to the Court of sessions for trial. Charges in the present case were framed on 2/2/2011 and read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) The defence of the appellant was complete denial of the case and his false implication.