SURESH CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants in these appeals along with two other accused persons were charged for committing offences punishable under S. 302, I.P.C. and S. 27 of the Arms Act for having committed triple murder of Shivnandan Mahto, Chamru Chaudhary and Rajendra Chaudhary on the night intervening between 10th and 11th October, 1992 within the jurisdiction of Islampur Police Station. In the said case, one of the accused persons by name Saryug Paswan was absconding. The trial of the said accused person was separated from the other accused persons. Learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda, after trial found the 3 accused persons including the two appellants herein guilty of the offences charged and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for an offence punishable under S. 302, I.P.C. He also imposed a sentence of 7 years R.I. for offence punishable under S. 27 of the Arms Act, and directed the sentences to run concurrently. Against the said judgment and conviction, the appellants preferred appeals before the High Court of Patna which dismissed the appeals, confirming the judgment and sentence imposed on the appellants.

(2.) Out of the 3 accused persons who have been convicted by the Courts below, accused-Suresh Chaudhary has preferred Crl. A. No. 193/2002 before us and accused-Padum Mali has preferred Crl. A. No. 673/2002. We are told that the accused-Sona alias Sonwa Chaudhary has not preferred any appeal against his conviction by the Courts below, we are also told that during the pendency of the appeal, the absconding accused-Saryug Paswan surrendered and his trial was held before the learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda, who after considering the evidence led by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established the case against him and accordingly acquitted him of the charges. Now only two of the accused are in appeal before us.

(3.) The prosecution case stated briefly is that on 11-10-1992 the 3 deceased persons along with Bijendra Chaudhary (P.W. 8), who is the brother of one of the deceased-Rajendra Chaudhary and cousin of the other deceased-Chamru Chaudhary were sleeping with 3rd deceased Sheo Mahto and another witness Baleshwar Chaudhary (P.W. 10) on the roof of the pump-house belonging to deceased-Sheo Mahto. At that time, the accused persons armed with revolvers and rifles came to the roof of the pump-house and opened indiscriminate firing consequent to which Sheo Mahto and Chamru Chaudhary died on the spot while Rajendra Chaudhary suffered severe wounds on his head while P.Ws. 8 and 10 escaped from being injured in the firing. It is the prosecution case that after the assailants went away, P.Ws. 8 and 10 went to the village and informed the people there including their relatives about the incident and brought them to the place of the incident and carried Rajendra Chaudhary who was injured, to a local doctor by name Dr. Birendra Babu (not examined) who on examining him, declared him dead. Thereafter, it is stated that P.Ws. 8 and 10 along with other relatives and villagers brought the dead body of Rajendra Chaudhary to the Police Station and gave a complaint which was signed by Bijendra Chaudhary (P.W. 8), and which was reduced to writing by Ramashankar Singh (P.W. 13), who was then the SHO of Police Station Islampur, who also investigated the case in hand. The prosecution then states that the said Investigating Officer, P.W. 13, went to the spot and conducted the inquest on the two dead bodies lying there and thereafter conducted the inquest on the dead body of Rajendra Chaudhary at the Police Station. In the meantime, he also tried to trace the accused persons and was able to arrest Sona Chaudhary on 11-10-1992 while other accused persons were not immediately available to be arrested. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by which time the other accused persons except Saryug Paswan were arrested. In this trial the prosecution examined 2 eye-witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 8 and 10 who according to the prosecution were sleeping with the deceased at the time of the incident out of which P.W. 10 has not supported the prosecution case, and he was declared hostile. Therefore, the prosecution relies on the sole evidence of P.W. 8 who was the only other eye-witness. Certain other witnesses like P.W. 4 Mantu Paswan and P.W. 5 Arjun Pandit have also turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case.