STATE OF BIHAR Vs. MUNESHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Government Appeal questions the propriety of judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram on the 24th day of November, 1986 in Sessions Trial No. 441/275 of 1986. The seven respondents were put on trial for a composite charge under section 201/34 of the IPC and also under section 307 IPC read with section 149 of the IPC. Some of them were charged individually also. Respondent Ram Ashrey Singh was charged under section 307 IPC for having caused injuries by firing a gunshot upon the informant Mahendra Singh, P.W. 12. Besides, respondents Ram Ashish Singh, Ram Ashrey Singh and Ramakant Singh werecharged jointly for committing the offence of rioting as also of murder asregards causing all four deaths of Ram Dulari Devi, Urmila Devi, Kumari Rita and Kumari Sangita. Similarly, respondents Muneshwar Singh, Bijendra Singh and Narendra Singh were charged under section 147 of the IPC on account of having committed the offence of rioting.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, was that P.W. 12 along with four deceased named above, was coming to his house situated at village Jaipur after having consulted a doctor. He alleged that when he had reached at aparticular place described in the FIR along with his family members, the four deceased and also his cousin brother Baleshwar Singh, all accused persons emerged from hiding and at the orders of Muneshwar Singh, the first shot was allegedly fired by Ram Ashrey Singh, which hit P.W. 12 below his left knee joint. THE two ladies, namely, the aunt and wife of the informant implored the accused persons not to kill the informant. In the mean time, the cousin brother of the informant, namely, Baleshwar Singh (P.W.1), who was moving ahead of the informant, shouted and asked the informant Mahendra Singh to run away upon which the informant ran towards his village. He heard the sound of gun shots and, on that, many of his villagers were also attracted to the scene of the occurrence and he after some times claimed to have come to the place of occurrence to find that none of the deceased were there but two slippers of his aunt and wife were lying on the place of occurrence which were completely soaked in blood. THE informant alleged that the dead bodies of the deceased were recovered from the canal and one of the dead bodies, i.e., of Kumari Ritawas completely shorn of muscles and it was almost a skeleton.

(3.) WE have heard Shri Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, the senior counsel who represents the state and also Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.