SURESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant Suresh Yadav was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum -Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court -II, Aurangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 1999/15 of 2005, for a composite charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and by the judgment dated 17.6.2006 was found guilty of committing the abovenoted offences. While hearing sentence and passing order in that behalf on 20.6.2006, the learned Judge directed the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/ - as fine for his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the learned Judge inflicted a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years as also a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - only upon him. The learned Judge directed that in case of the appellant defaulting in paying the fine as directed to be paid on the two counts, the appellant shall have to suffer additional periods of imprisonments for two years and one year respectively for his conviction under the abovenoted Sections of the Penal Code and the Arms Act. The above judgment and order of conviction are being challenged by the appellant in the present appeal. Before we revert to the rival contentions of the partiers so as to scrutinizing the correctness of the findings and the appropriateness of the sentences passed upon the appellant, we could notice the basic prosecution case which is as under.

(2.) ON the basis of the Fardbeyan of P.W. 8, Dhanmati Devi, wife of the deceased, the case was instituted and on investigation P.W. 12, the Sub -Inspector of Police, sent up the appellant for his trial during which course as many as 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of the charges. P.Ws. 1 to 5, namely, Ram Bachan Yadav, Jai Prakash Yadav, Sheo Narayan Sah, Lai Mohan Yadav and Faguni Yadav did not support the prosecution case and gave one line of evidence that they did not know anything about the occurrence. Some of them, like P.W. 3 Sheo Narayan Sah and P.W. 4 Lal Mohan Yadav, who had witnessed some part of the investigation like seizure and preparation of the inquest report or recording of the Fardbeyan, went to such an extent of being hostile as not to supporting the preparation of the documents, like, the inquest report or Fardbeyan. P.W. 11, Kapildeo Yadav, is a witness of formal nature who proved the writing of the document; which, in our opinion, has wrongly been treated as Ext. 1/A. The Rules of Criminal Practice framed by this Court known as Criminal Court Rules, did not approve of such marking of the document of the prosecution. It is only on the numerical side. Because the document has been proved and it could be read in evidence, we do not see any defect in the prosecution case. P.W. 10, Dr. Ajay Kumar had held post mortem examination on the dead body of Saryu Yadav and had prepared report in that behalf which has been marked Ext. 3 in the case. The witnesses who supported the prosecution charges are P.W. 6, Jitendra Yadav, who happened to be the younger brother of the son -in -law of the deceased, P.W. Panpati Devi, daughter of the informant and the informant P.W. 8 Dhanmati Devi, the wife of the deceased.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge, placed reliance upon the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 and found that the charges were proved on account of oral evidence being supported by the medical opinion and recorded the conviction and passed sentences as stated in the very first paragraph of the present judgment.