FIROJ MIAN SON OF SYED RIEN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOCHAS, P S- KOCHAS, DISTRICT - ROHTAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-2017-3-142
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on March 29,2017

Firoj Mian Son Of Syed Rien Resident Of Village Kochas, P S- Kochas, District - Rohtas Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE VS. MAHENDER SINGH DAHIYA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Kishore Kumar Mandal, J. - (1.)The sole appellant stands convicted under section 302 IPC including section 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST Act for having killed 14-year-old daughter of the informant (P.W.4). The learned trial court on finding him guilty sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life with fine having default clause and R.I. for life with fine having default clause respectively under the aforesaid two penal provisions. Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.
(2.)The factual background as unfolded by the prosecution at the trial is that on the night of 22nd-23rd February, 2011, the victim was forcibly taken away by the appellant and co-accused Banti from the house. The following morning, the dead body of the victim was found deserted in a nearby wheat field. P.W.4, being the father of the deceased, lodged the Fardbayan on 23.02.2011 at 9.30 A.M. at the place where the dead body of the deceased was found lying. In the fardbayan (Ext.2) the father has stated that his daughter (victim) was missing from the preceding evening. A search to trace her out was carried out which remained unfruitful/fruitless. He came back home and slept with the family. The following morning, it was revealed to him that a deadbody of a girl was lying in the field whereafter he went there and identified the body as that of his daughter. Recording of the Fardbayan by the Sub Inspector of Police-cum-SHO Kochas police station (P.W.6) ignited the investigation wherein the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The body was sent for post mortem examination. During investigation, a photograph of the coaccused Bunti with inscription thereon allegedly in the handwriting of the victim was recovered from the school bag of the victim which was seized under a memo in presence of P.W.7. Upon receipt of the post mortem report (Ext.4) and after conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the appellant and co-accused Bunti. From the records, we find that a claim of juvenility was raised on behalf of the co-accused Bunti and his case was separated. Upon commitment, the case came on the file of the learned trial Judge for trial and disposal where charges were framed and read over/explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty.
(3.)To further the prosecution case at the trial, the prosecution examined 08 witnesses. P.W.1 is the minor son of the informant. P.W.2 is the elder sister of the victim. P.W. 3 is the mother of the victim whereas P.W. 4 is the informant himself. P.W.5 Mangal Baid has been produced who has given a hearsay account of the occurrence. P.W.6 is the I.O. whereas P.W.7 is a relative (cousin brother) of the informant who had undertaken a search for the victim during the relevant night together with the mother of the deceased/victim. He is also witness to the recording of the FIR as well as the seizure of the photograph of the co-accused Bunti from the school bag of the victim girl. P.W. 8 is Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh who held the post mortem and proved the post mortem report (Ext.4). The defence of the appellant was complete denial of his involvement in the case. On critical analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial court held that the charges framed against the appellant were proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated above.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.