SUKHDEO CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Ss. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment of conviction dtd. 3/10/1997 and order of sentence dtd. 4/10/1997, passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1996 whereby and whereunder, the appellants named above have been convicted under Ss. 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec. 302/34 of IPC and 10 years RI under Sec. 307/34 of IPC, both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, as per fardbeyan dtd. 22/8/1995 of the informant, Gulu Baski (P.W.7) is that on 22/8/1995, in the day time he went to Giridih on a Scooter along with the deceased Kishun Marandi alias Manshu Marandi alias Guruji. They returned to Taratand Ahilyapur Chowk at 6.00 P.M. from Giridih and took tea in a hotel at the Chowk. Thereafter, at 8.00 P.M. they proceeded towards their house at Thadhi Mahua and the deceased was riding the scooter and he was sitting behind him on pillion. They arrived at Thadhi Mahua Tola at 08.05 P.M. and as soon as the deceased slowed down the scooter and turned the scooter towards his house in a lane, three persons appeared from the side of the Dewta Ghat of Kishun Marandi, in the front and suddenly a bomb exploded. Both Kishun and the informant sustained explosive injuries and he fell down and Kishun Marandi died on the spot. The scooter remained in starting position and there was light around it. The informant identified the appellants Kailash Choudhary and Sukhdeo Chaudhary, both sons of Kheman Choudhary of village Sonebad. The informant further stated that there was an unknown person along with Kailash Choudhary and Sukhdeo Chaudhary, to whom he saw and he claimed to identify him by face. The informant further stated that the deceased was a prominent person of Taratand Panchayat and he used to settle petty dispute in his village and the neighbourhood due to which terrorist of the area were inimical to him. The deceased did not allow the terrorists to enter his locality and before his killing he was threatened by them. Informant further stated that there was a land dispute between the Kheman Choudhary and Nakul Choudhary and the deceased helped Nakul Choudhary, who was a poor man. In the year 1994, both Nakul Choudhary and Kheman Chaudhary had a dispute concerning Mahua tree. Kheman Choudhary had sold the said Mahua tree to Daud Ansari and Nakul Choudhary with the help of the deceased had stopped the lifting of the tree. The police came to know about the said dispute and then, there was a measurement by Anchal Office and it was found that the Mahua tree was standing over gair-majurua land and then the branches of the said Mahua tree was auctioned, which was purchased by Daud Ansari. Thereafter, trunk of the Mahua tree was auctioned on 14/8/1995 in the Anchal Office and Daud Ansari had taken the said Mahua tree in auction for Rs.1155.00. Informant further stated that with the help of Kishun Marandi, stay was taken for the aforesaid auction order from L.R.D.C.'s Office. On 16/6/1995 accused Kheman Choudhary told Butulal Murmu (P.W-8), to forbid his friends Kishun Marandi, to help Nakul Choudhary in the matter. Again, accused Kheman Choudhary went to the house of Butulal Murmu on 21/8/1995 and said Butulal Murmu to forbid his friends Kishun Marandi, to help Nakul Choudhary. The informant further stated that while the accused had exploded the bomb and killed Kishun Marandi and injured the informant and were fleeing away, Suraj Marandi (P.W-9) had seen them fleeing away. Accused Kailash Choudhary and Sukhdeo Chaudhary, had killed the deceased due to his popularity, in conspiracy with the Lalkhand and terrorist, out of enmity.

(3.) On the basis of the fardeyan of the informant FIR being Ahilyapur P.S. Case No. 38 of 1995 dtd. 23/8/1995 was registered under Sec. 302/307/324/120A/34 of IPC and under Sec. 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants under 302,307 and 120(B) of IPC and under Sec. 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and trial was held. At the conclusion of trial, appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, hence, this appeal.