MUSO JHA RAGHO JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred by the two appellants against the judgment and order dated 7-7-1988, passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions judge, Saharsa, in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 1984, whereby he has been pleased to convict both the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2-1-1984 the informant Mohan Pathak (P. W. 12) went to Mahisi P. S. and gave his statement before the Officer-in-charge of the said P. S. stating therein that on the same day at about 1 p. m. he and his father were going to collect bundles of straw from the field situated towards east of the village. The informant's father was going ahead of the informant and the informant Mohan Pathak was behind him at some distance. The informant saw the appellants picking up straw from his field over which his father raised alarm and went there running in order to stop the appellants from taking away the straw. As soon as the informant's father reached near the appellants and tried to stop them from picking up straw the appellant muso Jha threw him down and then both the appellants started assaulting him with fists and legs. They also gave blows on his chest and other parts of his body. The informant as well as his father raised hulla of "bachao Bachao". It is further said that appellant Muso Jha gave several blows of fists and legs on the chest of his father and also tried to press his neck and twisted it (neck ). Due to assault, the informant's father became senseless and then the appellants fled away. Thereafter, the informant ran to the place of occurrence and found his father dead. It is said that on hulla witness Modh 'narain Pathak (P. W. 1), Indra Kant Mishra (P. W. 2), Garhai Mahton (not examined), sureshwar Jha (P. W. 3) came there and witnessed the occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence was that the informant's father used to guard the straw as a result of which, the accused persons were not getting chance of stealing the same and, so, they were aggrieved with the informant's father.

(3.) ON the basis of the above statement of the informant, Mohan Pathak (P. W. 12), mahishi P. S. case No. 1 of 1984 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against the appellants and the investigation of the case was taken up by P. W. 13 shyam Kumar Singh, who was the then Officer-in-charge of the said police station. During investigation, the said Officer-in-charge visited the place of occurrence, recorded statement of the witnesses, prepared inquest report and sent body for postmortem examination. It appears that during investigation of the case he was transferred and as such, he handed over the charge of the investigation of the case to SI sri R. K. Ram (not examined), who submitted charge-sheet in the case as the investigation was already complete.