JADU YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel.

(2.) There are six appellants in these appeals. All of them are convicted under S. 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They were tried for the offence for causing death of the deceased Bhabhichan Yadav by being members of an unlawful assembly. The prosecution case is that on 17-5-79, the deceased was putting tiles on the roof of his house standing on plot No. 805. At that time these appellants came there armed with Lathis and Gandasas and surrounded the house. The informant P.W. 9, the father of the deceased and P.W. 7 at that time were weeding out the grass by spade in the sugarcane field. The deceased ran away to a distance of 300 yards from the house to a place where P.W. 9 and P.W. 7 were carrying on weeding operation. It is alleged that all the six appellants chased the deceased and caught the deceased in the sugar-cane field and they assaulted him with Lathis and Gandasa. The motive for commission of the injuries is said to be the litigation between the parties. The deceased, after receiving injuries, died on the spot. A report was given, investigation commenced and the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. P.W. 8, the doctor, conducted the post-mortem on 18-5-79 and he noticed nine injuries. Injury Nos. 1 to 7 were incised wounds and the injury on the head proved to be a fatal one. The other injuries, such as injury No. 8 was an abrasion 1" x 1/10" on the neck and injury No. 9, described as multiple brain scattered all over the back. Out of the witnesses examined in the case by the prosecution, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 claimed to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The trial Court having examined the evidence of the eye-witnesses accepted the same and convicted all the appellants under S. 302/ 149, I.P.C. The appeal filed against the order of the trial Court was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court.

(3.) In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the witnesses are all interested parties and have given a fabricated version, and the overt acts attributed to by them to the accused do not fit in with the medical evidence, and there exists a conflict between the evidence of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to 'benefit of doubt'.