BIRENDRA RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated March 4, 2003 in Criminal Appeal No.366/1997 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court, affirming the judgment and order passed against them by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Session Trial No.321/1986. Appellant No.1 Birendra Rai has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms act. Appellant Nos.2 to 5 have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC. Appellants Govind Rai and Uma Shankar Pandey have also been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 2 p.m. on the 6th February, 1985, near a bridge on the canal, a little distance away from village Gaura. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Bhola Singh carrying a bundle of pea crop on his head came near the canal from his field when the appellants came near the bridge on a tractor trolly and fired at him. The first shot was fired by appellant Birendra Rai from his rifle causing injury on the chin of the deceased. After getting injured, he fell down, whereafter the other appellants fired indiscriminately from their respective weapons and went towards their village in the tractor trolly. P.W.4 Ram Bachan Singh, nephew of the deceased rushed to the police station along with P.W.3 Yogendra Singh where he lodged the report, on the basis of which a first information report was drawn up and a case was registered. Police Station Dinara was at distance of 8 kms. from the place of occurrence and the report was lodged by PW-4 at the police station at 3 p.m. Therefore, it appears that the first information report was promptly lodged.

(3.) The prosecution has examined two eye-witnesses namely, Ram Bachan Singh, the informant, P.W.4 and another eye witness Yogendra Singh, P.W.3. While P.W.4 is nephew of the deceased, P.W.3 Yogendra Singh is not related either to the accused persons or the deceased. P.W.2 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Singh was examined to prove the injuries suffered by the deceased, he being the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination.