SANTOSH SONAR @ SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant, who was convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 254 of 2010/Trial No. 07 of 2011 (arising out of Danapur P.S.Case No. 147 of 2009), has preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). The appellant by judgment dated 30-01-2013 passed by Sri Ram Priya Sharan Singh, learned Addl. Sessions Judge Vth, Danapur, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Judge') was convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Arms Act'). By order dated 08-02-2013, the learned Trial Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the appellant by the same order i.e. order dated 08-02-2013 was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) and in case of default in payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Sri Ram Dayal of Pirbahore Police Station on 30-05-2009 at 12:30 PM recorded fardbeyan of Hari Sagar Ray (P.W.5). The said fardbeyan was recorded in Patna Medical College & Hospital (hereinafter referred to as 'P.M.C.H'). In the fardbeyan, the informant disclosed that opposite to the house of informant in Mainpura, there was a shop of the informant, which was leased out to one Sushil Sonar on rental basis. After getting employment, the said Sushil Sonar had handed over the said business to his cousin brother Santosh Sonar (appellant), resident of Jahanabad. On the date of occurrence, the appellant was running the said shop. The informant's son Shashi Yadav (deceased) was rendering financial help to Santosh Sonar (appellant) and there was huge dues of rent as well as the amount given by his son. His son Shashi Yadav was repeatedly demanding his dues from the appellant. On 30-05-2009 at about 11:00 AM, in Mainpura near tea shop of Lakshman (not examined), informant's son again asked for due rent from Santosh Sonar (appellant) and thereafter, some altercation took place. In the meanwhile, Santosh Sonar (appellant), taking out country-made pistol from his waist, gave shot of firing on the head of informant's son. Informant's son thereafter received serious injury and he fell down and started squirming. Subsequently, Santosh Sonar (appellant) fled away from the place of occurrence. The informant disclosed that when the injured was brought to P.M.C.H., the doctor declared him dead. The informant claimed that said occurrence was seen by Lallu Sharma (P.W.1), Mantu Sah (not examined) and Others. The informant claimed that Santosh Sonar (appellant), who was resident of district Jahanabad, in view of demand of dues made by the deceased, by pistol gave shot of firing on his son and killed him. The said fardbeyan was read over to him and after finding it correct, he put his signature. The fardbeyan was also got signed by Raju Yadav (P.W.3) as witness to the fardbeyan. The informant has proved the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext.3.

(3.) On the basis of said fardbeyan, on the same date i.e. 30-05-2009 at 2:30 PM, a formal F.I.R., vide Danapur P.S. Case No. 147 of 2009, was registered for offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act against sole appellant. After investigation and finding the case true, police on 17-08-2009 submitted chargesheet against the appellant and on 22-01-2010, learned A.C.J.M., Danapur took cognizance of the offence. After completion of formalities under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., on 04-02-2010, the case was committed to the court of sessions and as such, it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 254 of 2010. On 02-06-2010, charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act was framed against sole appellant, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.