RAM ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.6.1987 passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Madhubani in S.T. No. 57/81 of 1980/85 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appellant Nasib Lal Roy has further been convicted for the offence under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments for three months and one month respectively.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that Mahanth Tilak Bhagat gave his fardbeyan that an incident took place on 24.1.1978 at about 11 p.m. At the relevant time, he along with Raj Kumar Sah, Laxmi Sah and Rajendra Sah after taking food were lying on the varanda of the northern room of the Math. Rajendra Sah and Raj Kumar Sah were expected to return to their house. The reason of assemblage was distribution of land of village Got Parsahi among the people by members of the Communist party. Raj Kumar Sail mid Rajendra Sah had also land in village Got Parsahi. At about 11 p.m. while they were lying three persons armed with lathi came and started assaulting them. One of them enquired about Rajendra Sail. In the meantime, 18 -20 miscreants variously armed with lathi, bhala and/area arrived there. They started running away. Rajendra Sail ran towards east but he was surrounded by the miscreants near the Bari of the Math and assaulted with bhala and farsa as a result of which he died at the spot. The miscreants, thereafter, ran away towards south. He identified Ram Roy, Dorm Roy, Samol Mandal, Dhamlal Roy, Nasib Lai Roy, Phuleshwar Yadav, Bhaiji Musher amongst the miscreants. Ddmi Roy assaulted him with lathi. Accused -persons also assaulted Raj Kumar and Laxmi Sah. The motive of the occurrence was land dispute and litigation pending in the Court between the deceased and the accused persons. On hearing alarm raised, Bhagwat Sah, Ram Bilas Sah. Ram Narain Sail. Uma Kant Sah and others came to whom he disclosed about the occurrence.

(3.) THE defence of the appellants was that no occurrence took place as alleged by the prosecution. They have falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity and litigation pending in the Court.