AMAR NATH SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Criminal Appeals (DB) have been preferred against the Judgment of conviction dated 26.11.1994 and order of sentence dated 28.11.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1993/104 of 1993. Therefore, both the aforesaid appeal have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. By the aforesaid Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that fardbeyan of informant Rajendra Manjhi was recorded by the A.S.I P. Kumar of P.S. Mashrakh on 13.08.1991 at 6.00 A.M. at State Dispensary Mashrakh to the effect that he was called by appellant Laxman Mahato for dinner at his house. After taking dinner, informant Rajendra Manjhi made demand of money, which was given by him to the wife of Appellant Laxman Mahato on which Appellant Laxman Mahto ordered to Appellant Amarnath Sah to confine Rajendra Manjhi inside the room thereupon Appellant Amarnath Sah locked to informant Rajendra Manjhi in the room. Thereafter, appellant Amarnath Sah caught the informant Rajendra Manjhi and appellant Laxman Mahto gave several Garasi blows causing injuries on neck, arms, legs and other parts of the body. On raising alarm by informant Rajendra Manjhi, several people came there and rushed him to State Dispensary, Masrakh for treatment.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of informant Rajendra Manjhi, Mashrak P.S. Case No. 133 of 1991 was instituted on 13.08.1991, under Sections 307, 324 and 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Due to death of informant Rajendra Manjhi, in course of treatment, Section 302 of I.P.C. was added on 09.09.1991. After investigation, the Police submitted the Chargesheet under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, cognizance of offence was taken against both the appellants and case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where both the appellants stood charge under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C.