KRISHNA PRASAD; HARDEO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of cqnviction and sentence passed by 5th"' Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No.45/199 of 1981/1990 by which appellant no.1 Krishna Prasad has been convicted under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and two years respectively and appellant no.2 Hardeo Prasad has been convicted under Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Both the sentences in respebt of convict Krishna Prasad were ordered to run concurrently. Other accused persons namely, Mundrika Prasad, kamla prasad, Ramjee prasad, Chandrika Prasad, Ramswarup Prasad and Kailash Prasad who also faced trial along with these two appellants were not lound guilty and were acquitted from the charges.

(2.) Aecording to the informant Sudarshan Singh, P.W.5, at. about noon on 22.12.1979 the appellants along with other accused persons came variously armed and at the behest of appellant Hardeo Prasad, appellant Krishna Prasad fired from his gun which caused injury to Rakesh Kumar due to which he fell down and got unconscious A case was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed before the sessions. court and the same were explained to the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded innocence and preferred to face trial.

(3.) The defence of the accused persons was of false implication and also that the prosecution has not come with true facts, rather it suppressed the material fact that On the same very date and time of the occurrence, the informant and others also attempted to kill the accused persons and in that connection one person received injury on chest which has remained unexplained. Further defence was that the case was reported to the police on 22.12.1979 but the F.I.R. was sent to the court on 27.12.1979 after long lapse of time i.e. 5 days and it has remained unexplained. The injury of the other side has also not been explained. So it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.