JAI NARAIN SAHNI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal (DB) has been preferred against the Judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 07.08.1995 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 230 of 1991/135 of 1992 whereby and whereunder, he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) P.W.10 Shakunti Devi gave her fardbeyan to S.I. of Chak Maheshi Police Station on 18.02.1990 at about 3.00 P.M. to this effect that on the same day, before sunrise, her husband, namely, Suraj Sahni had gone towards orchard to attend the call of nature, but when he did not return, she started searching her husband. In the meantime, P.W.7 Shanti Kumari, Biniya Kumari, daughter of Kishori Mahto, perhaps, she has been examined as P.W.8 and Gujia Kumari (P.W.9) informed her that her husband was lying dead in the orchard and having got the aforesaid information, she went to orchard, where she found the dead body of her husband lying in the aforesaid orchard. She further claimed that Chandreshwar Sahni, Vishwanath Pasi and several other co-villagers also came to the orchard along with her and saw the dead body of her husband. She further expressed her doubt against the appellant and four others on the ground of previous enmity.

(3.) On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Chak Maheshi P.S. Case No. 11 of 1990 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and, subsequently, formal F.I.R. was drawn up against unknown. The Investigating Officer took the charge of investigation and after completion of the investigation, submitted chargesheet against the appellant and four others for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since, the remaining Chargesheeted accused were shown absconder, the appellant was put on trial after cognizance and commitment, accordingly, the sole appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. to which he denied and claimed to be tried.