BINDESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these criminal appeals detailed above so filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are heard together because of its arising out of the judgment so parsed in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1979 dated 30th of June, 1986, by virtue of which the learned IIIrd Additional sessions Judge, Arrah, has convicted Parasnath Singh the sole appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 1986, tinder Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also convicting him under Section 27 of the Arms Act for which he is directed as to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The rest of the accused-appellants, namely, Bindeshwar Singh, Fagulal Singh (Mahton), Ram Niwas Singh and Kishun Singh filed Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 1986 but by going through the order-sheet dated 10.7.2000 of Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 1986 it transpires that on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur at Arrah dated 25.4.2000 reporting with regard to the death of one of the accused-appellants, i.e., Kishun Singh, taking place on 7.6.1987 as against him the present Criminal Appeal has abated. So there remains only three accused-appellants, namely, Bindeshwar Singh, Fagulal Singh and Ram Niwash Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 1986 who stand convicted under Sections 302/149 of the IPC by the impugned judgment and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Accused-appellants Fagulal Singh and Bindeshwar Singh are convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. The rest got convicted under Sections 307/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. They are also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentences so imposed on the persons figuring as appellants in both these criminal appeals are, however, directed as to run concurrently.

(2.) This will not be out of place to mention at the very outset that in course of trial of Sessions Case No. 43 of 1979, after examining of some of the witnesses, the learned Court below was pleased as to arraign three of the persons namely, Ekram Singh, Patel Singh and Bijay Singh as also to face the trial under East Cr C(2)3(HC) the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr PC such orders being passed on 29.11.1980 who were as it transpires separately tried vide Sessions Trial No. 291 of 1980 and those accused-persons arraigned under Section 319 of the Cr PC are also acquitted by the learned Court below being given the benefit of doubts. At present, thus, we are concerned with the judgment so passed in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1979 in which the present accused-appellants of both Criminal Appeals taken up together figured as accused. Since both the Criminal Appeals in hand has cropped-up out of the same judgment of conviction and sentence so passed in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1979, this common judgment will thus, govern and dispose of both the Criminal Appeals.

(3.) The prosecution case, put in narrow compass, as coming from the mouth of Chhedi (PW 16) is that in between '9.30-10 a.m. on 12.11.1976 in Mauza Birampur for getting water from the boring for the purpose of irrigating the agricultural land, he could see Dashrath Mahton (PW 12) having altercation with Fagulal Mahton one of the accused-appellants at that time, as per the prosecution, Pramod Mahton (PW 3) and others were taking their bath at the said boring. Because of the altercation so going on it took a bad shape and there was hot exchange of words between Dashrath Mahton and Fagulal Singh (Mahton) and other accused-persons also arrived at the scene equipped with firearms and started firing. Accused- appellant, Bindeshwar Singh is first said to have fired at which was a blank fire hitting none and then the miscreants were seen running towards the guava tree located to the west of the house of accused Fagulal Mahton from where, as per the fardbeyan so given by the First Informant, Chhedi Ram (PW 6), so recorded on the same day at thirteen hours, being marked as Ext. 9; accused-appellants, Bindeshwar Singh and Parasnath Singh fired at as a result of which, as claimed, the informant's sister Phulpatia Devi (PW 10) and his nice Kamli Devi (since deceased) sustained injuries. Further case of the prosecution is that when Jung Bahadur Mahton (PW 11) proceeded to rescue the ladies injured, he is also said to have been fired at by the accused-appellant Bindeshwar Singh. Bali Ram alias Bali Chamar (PW 9) who at that time had moved towards west from the Darwaza of the first informant is also claimed to have been injured because of the firing so resorted by the accused-persons. Because of the hue and cry being raised, as detailed in the fardbeyan, Raghurai Dusadh (not examined), Nanki Ram (not examined), Rameshwar Ram (PW 15) and others arrived who had, as claimed by the first informant, an occasion to see the occurrence. The four injured persons, namely, Fulpatia Devi, Kamli Devi, who is said to have been so injured at the time of occurrence, breathed her last on 16.11.1976 in the P.M.C.H.; Jung Bahadur Mahton (PW 11) and Bali Ram alias Bali Chamar (PW 9) were taken to Arrah Sadar Hospital and though there was indiscriminate firing so resorted by the miscreants figuring as accused but out of them accused Bindeshwar Singh and Parasnath Singh are said to have actively participated. The fardbeyan so given was recorded by SI, RN Tiwary, figuring as PW 23. On the basis of the FIR so given, it further transpires that Koilwer police case No. 5(11), 76 dated 12.11.1976 was so registered under Sections 147,148,149,307 & 324 of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and because of Kamli Devi, who succumbed to the injuries, Section 302 of the IPC was so also added. After completing the investigation charge-sheet was so submitted and after taking the cognizance of the offence the case record got so committed to the Court of Sessions; charges were so framed-against the accused-appellants and in course of trial in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1979, altogether twenty seven prosecution witnesses got examined. Three of the DWs are also examined in course of trial and the learned Court below after evaluating the evidence available on the record oral and documentary has, thus, convicted the accused-appellants and sentenced them thereunder detailed above which need not be repeated.