ANIL CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant against the judgment and order dtd. 17/9/2002 passed by Sri Vijay Kumar Sinha, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhagalpur in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2001/Trial No. 214 of 2002 by which the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and has further been convicted under Sec. 387 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and has further been convicted under Sec. 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. By the said judgment learned trial court has acquitted co-accused Narayan Rai who was also facing the trial.

(2.) Prosecution case as appears from the statement of PW 4 Sangita Verma, in short, is that on 30/4/1999 at about 8 P.M. two persons came at her house and handed over a sealed envelop and when she enquired about the same she was informed that they had come from Thana Chowk and had brought a letter for Gopal Verma, the husband of the informant. It is further alleged that she became suspicious and she called them but they did not come and thereafter she came inside and read the letter in which Rs.50,000.00 was demanded from her husband within 24 hours otherwise threatening was made against him of dire consequence as was done in the case of other persons. Further prosecution case is that at 8.30 A.M. on the next day a telephone call came to her house and Rs.50,000.00 was demanded, otherwise the whole family members would be killed and her husband showed his inability to give the money. Further case is that on 2/5/1999 at 8.30 A.M. again a telephone call had come for payment of extortion and also threatened them. It is also the case of prosecution that thereafter another call had come and by incoming caller machine the number of telephone was detected as 400975 of a telephone booth and on enquiry the telephone booth owner told her that the caller was Anil Choudhary stating that he made a call to telephone No. 423165 which was of the informant. Further prosecution case is that on 2/5/1999 at 9 A.M. four miscreants armed with pistol came at the residence of the informant and started abusing her and told the informant to open the gate and it is further alleged that the informant identified one of the miscreants as Anil Choudhary, the appellant and thereafter the informant came back to her room and as soon as she tried to bolt her window, the appellant with intention to kill her fired on her, which hit the wall of the room after hitting first the net of the window and the informant could save her by bending herself and after that all the miscreants fled away from there.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid statement Tatarpur P.S,Case No. 0186 of 1999 was registered under Ss. 307, 447, 387, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. After cognizance and commitment of the case ultimately the case traveled to the file of Sri Vijay Kumar Sinha, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Bhagalpur for trial and disposal.