UMESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a report made by Jugeshwar Singh (PW-7) alleging that the appellants herein along with several other persons numbering about 20 came to 'Khalihan' (threshing floor) of Bhola Singh where he and other members of his family were threshing paddy. They tried to take away the paddy. Upendra Singh threatened that any resistance would be met with such action which might even result in death. Thereafter Rajendra Singh hit Bhola Singh with a lathi and Upendra Singh moved backward and fired at Bhola Singh with gun as a result of which Bhola Singh was hit and fell down writhing in pain. Saryu Singh was shot at by Rajendra Singh and Bhagwat Dayal Singh, who was also inflicted a bhala blow by Arvind Singh, appellant in the connected matter. Umed Singh and Sheonandan Singh fired at Rajdeo Singh as a result of which he fell down. When Dharmshila, wife of Bhola Singh reached the threshing floor with her child aged about one and half years old in her arm named Rinku, Sheonandan Singh snatched the child and threw the child on the ground as a result of which the child died. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against seven persons named in the FIR as three of them had died during the pendency of the investigation. The trial Court convicted Sheonandan Singh and Upendra Singh under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced them to death, one of the accused - Satyendra Singh, was acquitted and rest of the accused persons were convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 149 and sentenced for life imprisonment. They were further convicted under Section 324 read with Section 148, I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. On appeal to the High Court conviction was maintained while sentence of death on Sheonandan Singh and Upendra Singh was reduced from one of death of life imprisonment thereafter. Appeals have been preferred before this Court.

(2.) In the appeals before us, two of the accused are in appeal in Crl. A. Nos. 824-825 of 1998 while in the connected appeal Crl. A. No. 659/99, Arvind Singh and Bipin Singh have filed appeals. However, Bipin Singh not being able to surrender his appeal has been dismissed.

(3.) In the appeals of Umesh Singh s/o Sheonandan Singh and Rajendra Singh s/o Pragash Singh, Shri U.R. Lalit, learned senior advocate for the appellants, considering the fact that there are four witnesses (who were injured) and two eye witnesses to the incident and their evidence has been believed by the two Courts below, did not pitch their cases too high but confined his arguments only to certain probabilities arising even accepting the evidence tendered before the Courts below on the basis of the acts attributed to the appellants. His submission is that while Rejendra gave a blow to deceased Bhola Singh with a lathi, he could not have intended his death and the act attributed to Umesh Singh is that he fired at Rajdeo Singh and no doctor has been examined with reference to the injuries inflicted upon Rajdeo Singh but only after post-mortem examination took place, a doctor has been examined. He addressed an argument that the common objective was only to take away paddy from the threshing floor and it was not that it should be one to cause injuries much less than death to anyone. If that is so, they could not be attributed vicarious liability punishable under Section 149, I.P.C. and when Rajendra Singh gave blow with lathi to Bhola Singh, he could not be stated to be intending to cause death of Bhola Singh and the gun which is stated to have been used by Umesh Singh has not been recovered. The medical evidence tendered also is not very clear in this regard to support the case of the prosecution as to the manner in which the incident has taken place. The fact remains that Rajendra Singh attacked with lathi and the injuries were sustained by Bhola Singh. As appeared from the evidence of the doctor PW-5 the injuries on Bhola Singh include a fracture of the left leg above ankle joint which was confirmed by dissection. Bhola Singh had received seven blows on his leg with lathi and several pellet injuries were found in the front of his chest and abdomen which had caused damage to the internal system resulting in his death. Therefore, there is ample evidence on record in the shape of the evidence of the eye witnesses and the witnesses who had sustained injuries, sounding a ring of truth to prosecution case put forward, with the trial Court and the High Court having taken identical views, we do not think there is any good reason to upset those findings.