KRISHNA MOHALI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by Sri. A.P. Ram, Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella, in S.T. No. 12 of 1994 by which the sole appellant was held guilty under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short is that in the evening of 12-4-1993, the informant Jhingi Birua along with her husband Raghu Birua, sister-in-law Dosma and other family members were in the house situate in the violate Turi Sai. P.S. Kharsawan and the husband left the house at about 6.00 p.m. but he was in the village. It has been alleged that the appellant Krishna Mahali and one Manbodh Sarangi came and began to talk with the wife of the Bhainsur of the informant but in the meantime, the husband of the informant came at about 7.30 p.m. and protested and asked the appellant and Manbodh to leave the house and this caused annoyance to the appellant and he went to his house and brought a knife and gave a blow on the palm as also on the stomach causing serious injuries to the husband of the informant and after that, the appellant and Manbodh escaped away. It is also the prosecution case that the injured husband was removed inside the house, but immediately he succumbed to the injuries and as it was a rainy day and there was no male member in the house, so in the night the matter could not be reported to the police. On the, next day, the matter was reported to Kharsawan P.S. Sub-Inspector of Police came to the place of occurrence and recorded fardbeyan of the informant in the morning at 7.30 a.m. on 13-4-1993 and on that basis, the case was instituted as against this appellant and Manbodh. An inquest of the dead body was prepared and sent for post-mortem examination and after completing the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet as against the appellant and Manbodh. During trial, the co-accused Manbodh is said to have died. So, the prosecution as against the deceased Manbodh was dropped and the trial proceeded against this appellant.

(3.) The appellant claims himself to be innocent and has denied to have committed the murder of the deceased and it is his defence that the informant and his family members used to sell illicit liquor for which the appellant protested and some unknown persons might have committed the murder of the deceased and the appellant has been implicated. The trial court believe the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above. The question of consideration before us is whether the appellant caused the injuries in the evening of 12-4-1993 in village Turisai, which resulted in the death of the deceased, as alleged.