BACHHU NARAIN SINGH Vs. NARESH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals the appellants impugn the common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature for Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos. 313 of 1988, 332 of 1988 and 318 of 1988 whereby the High Court acquitted respondents 1 to 13 of the charges variously levelled against them under Sections 302, 302/149, 379, 148 and 147 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Criminal Appeal Nos. 1969, 1970 and 1971 of 1996 have been preferred by Bachhu Narain Singh, informant who was examined as PW-9 before the trial Court. He happens to be the younger brother of one of the deceased Keshri Nandan Singh. Criminal Appeal Nos. 256, 257 and 258 of 1997 have been preferred by the State of Bihar against the acquittal of the aforesaid respondents by the impugned judgment and order.

(3.) Respondents 1 to 13 were put up for trial before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Case No. 57/86/8/86. The trial Court by its judgment and order dated June 6,1988 found respondent Naresh Yadav guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Respondents 2 to 13 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/149, IPC and were also sentenced to imprisonment for life. All the respondents except Deva and Lakhandeo were also found guilty of the offence under Sections 148, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Respondents Deva and Lakhandeo were sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, IPC. Three apepals were preferred against the judgment and order of the trial Court, namely, Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 1988 preferred by Lakhandeo Yadav; Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 1988 preferred by Shiba Yadav and Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 1988 preferred by the remaining eleven accused. These appeals were initially heard by a Dvision Bench of the High Court but the learned Judges differed in their opinion - while N.S. Rao, J. was of the view that the appeals ought to be allowed and the respondents acquitted, S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J. was of the view that the appeals had no merit and ought to be dismissed. In view of the difference of opinion the matter was placed before D. P. Sinha, J. in view of the provisions of Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The third Judge, after hearing the matter at length by his judgment and order of December 22, 1995 agreed with the view of N.S. Rao, J. and allowing the appeals acquitted respondents 1 to 13 of all the charges levelled against them. The appellants have impugned the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court by special leave.