Navin Sinha & Dharnidhar Jha, JJ.:- The solitary appellant, namely, Ranjay Paswan was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court IV, Jamui, in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 2006 with co-accused Sudarshan Paswan for composite charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. While acquitting the co-accused sudarshan Paswan of the charges indicated above, the learned Judge held the appellant guilty of committing offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act by his judgment and order of conviction dated 27.8.2008 and directed placing the records before him again on 3.9.2008 so as to hearing the convict on sentence and passing the order of sentence on that particular day. While passing the order of sentence on 3.9.2008, the learned Judge was of the view that the case fell within the category of the rarest of rare cases, because the impact of the murder of the deceased was going “to give very bad impression to the society and public at large” and accordingly directed hanging of the appellant by his neck till he was dead and thus, the above noted Death Reference before this Bench. The appellant has challenged the whole judgment of conviction and sentence through the connected appeal which has been heard with the death reference today.

2. P.W. 15 is the informant of the case and she gave her fardbeyan (Ext.2) before the police alleging that the deceased Pappu Sharma who was the son of one Ramkishore sharma and happened to be the son of her husband’s sister, was residing in her house and was prosecuting his studies in K.K.M. College, Jamui, as a student of Intermediate Class. P.W. 15 further stated that cost of education of the deceased was borne by his parents. It was further alleged that on the date of occurrence, i.e. 25.9.2005, Sunday, the deceased was at the house of P.W. 15 and was absorbed in his studies while the informant was cooking meals. At about 10 A.M. the appellant, who happened to be the son-in-law of co-accused Sudarshan Paswan, came there and wanted a hundred rupee-note to be exchanged for notes of lesser denominations to which the deceased stated that he did not have that much of money. The lady claimed also coming there by that time. It is alleged that the appellant told the informant as to why Pappu Sharma was flirting with his Sali (wife’s sister) upon which the deceased stated that he never indulged in such bad activities. The appellant, it is alleged, pulled up a pistol from his waist, shot and killed the deceased Pappu sharma and ran away from there. P.W. 15 raised cry which, as per her statement, attracted many villagers who saw the appellant running away from the place of occurrence.

3. It was stated that co-accused Sudarshan Paswan was working out side his village and had reached home just a couple of days back and the lady suspected that Sudarshan Paswan could have abetted his son-in-law, i.e., Ranjay Paswan, to commit the murder of Pappu Sharma. The lady again reiterated that the appellant Ranjay Paswan doubted that the deceased was putting his greedy eyes upon his Sali though the fact was that he was himself entangled with the lady and, as such, committed the offence.

4. After recording of Ext.2, the same appears to have been sent to the Police Station and on that basis Ext.5, the F.I.R. of the case was registered. P.W. 14, Sub-Inspector of Police Umesh Chandra who recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) was very much at the place of occurrence and, as such, he took up the investigation, during which course he inspected the place of occurrence which has been described by him as the house of P.W. 15 Neoji Devi situated at village Harnaha. P.W. 14 found that there was a table and a chair kept inside a room and books were spread over the table and the pen was still without its cover on. P.W. 14, the Investigating Officer, found the splash of blood in sufficient qu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document