RAM UDGAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Politics, which was once considered the choice of noble and decent persons is increasingly becoming a haven for law breakers. The Nelsons eye turned by those wielding power criminalisation of politics by their solemn and determined patronage and blessings by vying with each other has been encouraging and facilitating rapid spread and growth with rich rewards and dividends criminals. The alarming rate of social respectability such elite gangster'sRs. gaining day by day in the midst of people who chose and had given un themselves the right elect their rulers, mostly guided by misdirected allegiance party politics and self oriented profit making endeavours seem provide the required nectar for its manifold and myriad ways of ventilation with impugnity. Though it is an irony, yet accepted truth is that the Home rule we could achieve by non-violence has become the root cause for generating homicidal culture of political governance effectively shielded by unprincipled mass sympathies and highly profit-oriented selfish designs of unscrupulous people who have many faceted images present themselves at times the extent of their deification. For some it brings seal for respectability and for some others, it is intended be used as a shield for protection against law enforcing agencies and that is how reports of various Commissions and Committees have become sheer cry in wilderness.

(2.) About three decades back one Ram Anugrah Singh alias Annu Singh (hereinafter referred as deceased) was a victim of political rivalry. He paid price for allegedly being a loyal member of one political party which was not the liking of some including the present appellant. Debacle of Parliamentary by-election of 1969 is said have provided the impetus do away with the life of the deceased on 7.4.1969. The appellant along with 10 others including the members of the Parliament and legislative, assembly were alleged be responsible for his death. Eleven persons in tal faced trial for offences punishable under various provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short: the IPC). Appellant was charged for commission of offence punishable under302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short the Arms Act). Eight others were charged for commission of offence punishable under 302 read with 34 IPC. Two others breathed their last during trial.

(3.) Prosecution case as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows: Ram Bilash Singh (PW5), deceased and one Ramanand Jha (PW-2) had gone withdraw money from a bank at Barauni. The deceased also carried some amount be paid a wood seller. After withdrawal of money from the bank all the three persons proceeded on bicycle and reached near the post office of their village Bihat. At that time three of the accused persons namely, Surya Narain Singh, Rameshwar Singh and Deoki Nandan Singh coming from a place of some political meeting saw them. They were followed by many other persons including the accused persons. Four accused persons including the appellant caught hold of the deceased. While accused Ram Ratan Singh and Umesh Singh caught hold of the informant (PW5), accused Ram Shankar Singh and Sahdeo Singh caught hold of Ramanand Jha (PW-2). Accused Surya Narain Singh, Rameshwar Singh and Deoki Nandan Singh who were leaders of a political party directed others kill the deceased, as it was a good opportunity kill him. At the behest of these three persons as aforesaid four persons caught the deceased and ok him wards North in the field. Accused-appellant Ram Udgar Singh fired a gun shot on the chest of the deceased. Other accused Suro Singh (since dead) also shot at the deceased. Receiving the gunshot injuries the deceased fell down. Thereafter the accused persons ran away after taking the cash carried by the deceased. The occurrence was witnessed by Kapildeo Singh, and others arrived there on hearing the sound of firing. The deceased was taken the hospital in injured condition, but he breathed his last there. First information report was lodged and investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed as aforesaid. As the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 (for short the "Old Code") was in operation, proceedings were initiated under the existing law. While the case was still pending for inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Old Code, the new Code came in force, and the case was committed the Court of Sessions in 1977. Charges were framed. PWs.1 4 were examined. As some witnesses were not examined earlier petition was filed and it was taken note of and some other persons were examined.