STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BABULAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS State Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.09.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge,.Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 1989 whereby the respondents. Babulal Prasad and Surya Kant Patel @ Surya herein were acquitted from the charge framed under Sections 302/201/34 I.P.C. against them.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that the informant Sub - Inspector of Police of Bistupur Police Station received a call in the mid night of 24th March, 1989 at about 2 a.m. that a dead body was lying on the flank of road towards north which led to Circuit House Area. As the place as pointed out was within the jurisdiction of Bistupur Police Station, the informant on such information immediately rushed to the pointed place and found the information true as a dead body smeared in blood was found lying with the bleeding from his injuries including from nose which appeared to be of a young man aged about 20 years. The informant further gathered that though the deceased was shot dead else but the dead body was brought and thrown in the bush in order to conceal the evidence of murder. The police registered Bistupur P.S. Case No. 88/1989 on 24.03.1989 at 4.30 a.m. on the basis of the self-statement of the informant Bhuwaneshwar Sharma against unknown. The Investigating.Officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet against four accused persons viz (1) Babulal Prasad, (2) Surya Patel (3) Ashok Nagpal and (4) Mohan Sindhi. As two of them namely Ashok Nagpal and Mohan Sindhi died at the initial stage of trial, there remained only Babulal Prasad and Surya Patel i.e. the respondents herein who were charged for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 I.P.C. and were acquitted after trial.

(3.) THERE are certain facts relevant to the present appeal which needs mention that after appearance of the Respondent No. 1 and 2, the appeal was admitted for hearing by the order dated 31.03.1998 and the lower court record was called for which could not be dispatched for long nine months. Yet, this appeal was heard in absence of case record on the basis of memo of appeal, impugned judgment and the arguments on behalf of the parties.