JAGLAL CHOUDHARY @ KARU CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [ hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C."] against the judgment of his conviction and sentence passed in S. Tr. No. 369 of 2010 (S.J.) / 186 of 2010. The sole appellant by judgment dated: 22.01.2013 was convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [ hereinafter referred to as the "I.P.C."] and by order dated 24.01.2013 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant was tried in S. Tr. No. 369 of 2010 (S.J.)/ 186 of 2010 [ arising out of Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 198 of 2009 , G.R. No. 2918 of 2009 ] . The judgment of conviction and sentence was passed by Sri Ravindra Singh, learned Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge- IV, Gaya [ hereinafter referred to as the "trial judge"].

(2.) Short fact of the case is that on 13.09.2009 a written report of the informant /Rambarat Parjapat was filed before the Officer in charge, Bodh Gaya Police Station disclosing therein that on the same day i.e. on 13.09.2009 in the day time he was in his house and his wife- Saraswati Devi ( deceased) at about 1.00 P.M. came out of house for attending natural call and she proceeded towards <SUP>[1]</SUP> . The informant also proceeded following her and suddenly he heard cry of his wife. Then he saw that his co-villager: Jaglal Choudhary @ Karu (appellant) carrying <SUP>[2]</SUP> in his hand caught his wife and from back side on her neck he started inflicting <SUP>[3]</SUP> blow. Within few seconds his wife after getting injuries fell down and thereafter Jaglal Choudhary @ Karu Choudhary/ appellant said that he had killed and fled away. On alarm raised by the informant number of villagers arrived there and they had seen the occurrence. The villagers also chased Jaglal Choudhary but he succeeded in fleeing away. The reason for the occurrence was given by the informant that Jaglal Choudhary was a criminal minded person and earlier on number of occasions he had threatened for killing. The informant stated that since they were mostly involved in offering <SUP>[4]</SUP> it was not being liked by the appellant and he was levelling allegation that informant side were doing work of <SUP>[5]</SUP> and this was the reason that many of the family members of the appellant had earlier died. The informant claimed that Jaglal Choudhary @ Karu due to old dispute with intent to kill his wife had seriously caused injuries on the person of his wife. On the basis of the said written report on the same day i.e. on 13.09.2009 at about 13.45 Hours [1.45 P.M. ] a formal F.I.R. vide Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No. 198 of 2009 was registered for the offence under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307 of the I.P.C. against the sole appellant however since the injured died in the next evening i.e. on 14.09.2009 at about 8.30 P.M. subsequently on 06.10.2009 in the F.I.R. Section 302 of the I.P.C. was added. The appellant on the next day on 14.09.2009 was arrested. During investigation the accusation was found true and as such on 31.10.2009 charge sheet was submitted against the sole appellant whereupon on 26.11.2009 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya took cognizance of offences. After completion of formalities under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the court of Sessions on 6.5.2010 and as it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 369 of 2010 (S.J.) / 186 of 2010. On 01.09.2010 against the sole appellant charge was framed under Section 302 of the I.P.C. which was denied by him and he claimed to be tried.

(3.) To establish its case from the prosecution side altogether six witnesses were examined. Out of six witnesses, P.W. 3 / Rambarat Parjapat is the informant of the case and he was examined as eye witness to the occurrence. During his evidence he proved his signature on the written report, which was marked as Ext. 1. He further proved his own signature on the fardbyan of deceased [Saraswati Devi ] which was shown to be recorded in Magadh Medical College & Hospital just one hour prior to her death. It was marked as Ext. 1/1. He also proved his signature on the second fardbyan which was recorded in Magadh Medical College & Hospital and it was marked as Ext. A. P.W. 6 / Birendra Singh an Advocate Clerk has come forward to prove fardbyan of Saraswati Devi [ deceased] which was said to be recorded in Magadh Medical College & Hospital Police Station and this fardbyan was marked as Ext. 5. He further proved fardbyan of informant / Rambarat Parjapat said to be recorded in Magadh Medical College Police Station which was marked as Ext. 6. P.W. 1 / Pintu Kumar Dubey and P.W. 2 / Birendra Kumar Pandey since did not support the prosecution case they were declared hostile. P.W. 4 / Dr. Arvind Kumar on 15.09.2009 was posted in the Forensic Department, Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College & Hospital , Gaya who conducted post -mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and he proved the post -mortem examination report which was marked as Ext. 2. In this case the Investigating Officer was not examined, however Officer -in-charge of Bodh Gaya Police Station who was posted on 109.2009 was examined as P.W. 5 namely Raj Kishore Prasad who proved the written report which was marked as Ext. He also proved endorsement on the written report, which was marked as Ext. 3/1 and also formal F.I.R., which was marked as Ext. 4. After completion of prosecution evidence on 28.09.2012 statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he claimed to be innocent and he also stated that he was not knowing as to why the said case was instituted against him, however, no defence witness was examined on behalf of the appellant.