BUDHU PAHAN ALIAS BOTWA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in S.T. No. 485 of 1990 whereby she has convicted the appellant under Sections 302/449 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with no separate sentence under Section 449 of Indian Penal Code. By the said judgment, co-accused Manbodh Pahan has been acquitted.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that as per the first information report (Ext, 5) on 6-8-1990 at about 11.00 P.M. when the informant Bandhana Pahan, PW 4 was sleeping in the house of his grand-parent and his grand-parents were sleeping in the Dhaba, he woke up on the sound of opening of the door. He saw in the light of a 'dhibri' burning in the verandah, where his grand-parents were sleeping, that this appellant hurled blows on his grand-father and grandmother and killed them by assaulting them with the axe. Further case of the prosecution is that Manbodh Pahan was standing there and out of fear he (informant) could not raise any alarm and that both of them thereafter went away talking as to whether both the victims had been finished or not. The further case of the prosecution is that after the occurrence, the informant Bandhana Pahan informed his father PW 5 Bhaju Pahan. His father and villagers came there and lived there during the night and in the morning, the informant went to the Police Station, where he lodged fard-beyan at 9.30 A.M. on the basis of which Karra PS Case No. 61 of 1990 was registered under Section 302/34 IPC against this appellant and Manbodh Pahan and the police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet against both of them and their case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges under Section 302/34/449 IPC were framed against this appellant and Manbodh Pahan. After trial, Manbodh was acquitted and this appellant has been convicted as aforesaid.

(3.) The defence of the appellant appears to be his false implication in this case.