SHEO CHARAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.9.1986 passed by 10th Addl. Sessions Judge, Munger in S.T. No. 608/85 whereby appellants Awadesh Yadav and Mannu Yadav have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Rest of the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellants Sheo Charan Yadav, Awadesh Yadav and Mannu Yadav have further been convicted for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Rest of the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, as has been stated in the First Information Report, is that one Bisheshwar Yadav gave his fardbeyan before the police on 30 -7 -1984 at about 9.30 p.m. stating therein that his brother Karu Yadav was grazing his he -buffaloes in Chaukidar Bahiar. At about 1.00 p.m., when his wife had gone there with food, Awadesh Yadav armed with gun, Manu Yadav armed with dagger, Sheo Charan Yadav armed with bhala, Debu Yadav, Mishri Yadav, Moti Yadav, Shankar Yadav and Nan Keshar Yadav armed with lathi surrounded his brother, Manu Yadav tied his hand on the order of Awadesh Yadav. His wife requested not to assault but they did not listen. Thereafter, Awadhesh Yadav fired causing injury to his brother Karu Yadav. He fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Manu Yadav assaulted him with dagger on his neck. The other accused - persons also assaulted him with lathi. The incident was witnessed by Ishwar Yadav, Jago Yadav and Surendra Yadav. He came to his village and informed about the incident to Tirath Yadav, Brahma Yadav and Sukhdeo Yadav. The people went to the place of occurrence. The motive of the occurrence was litigation with regard to land with appellant Awadhesh Yadav.

(3.) THE defence of the appellants was that they were innocent and were falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. They denied participation in the occurrence. Awadhesh Yadav was not present at the place of occurrence. He was at Jamui at the relevant time to make pairvi in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.