JAIMAL SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4 -2 -1989 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge. Palamu in S.T. No. 180/87. In both the appeals appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to' undergo imprisonment for life. They have further been convicted for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) ONE Gulab Chand Sao gave his fardbeyan on 10 -8 -1986 at 7.30 a.m. before the Sub - Inspector of Police that yesterday his mother and younger sister were doing paddy seedling near the hillock. His elder brother Prasad Sao had gone to hillock to see cultivation and grazing cattle. In the afternoon the wife of Prasad Sao namely. Putni Devi told him that Rama Sao. Sham a Sao. Mahendra Sao his father Jaimal Sao and mother Dhaneshri had gone towards hillock with tangi and lathi. She asked him to go there as his elder brother had gone to graze the cattle as they had threatened her husband. Some time thereafter at about 5 p.m. he went towards hillock and when, he climbed on the hillock he heard cry of his brother and saw his relations Rama Sao and Shama Sao with tangi and Mahendra Sao with lathi assaulting his brother and Jaimal Sao and Dhaneshri Devi assaulting him by throwing stones. Dhaneshri Devi said to kill him. She also threatened him. He raising hulla returned back and told his mother and younger sister who were doing paddy seedling near the hillock. He along with his mother sister and Ramyad Sao and Behari Sao who were ploughing the field raising hulla went to hillock and saw the aforesaid persons after killing him were pushing his brother. The accused persons saw them and ran away towards south in the forest. Many persons came thereon hulla thereafter he and others were taking his brother to his house who died on the way. The motive of the occurrence as alleged was that his cattle had gone in the maize crops of the accused persons for which they had threatened to kill.

(3.) THE trial Court recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and on completion of trial convicted the appellants as stated above.