RAM UDGAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH motive that mobilises a person to commit an offence may not be known in all cases, that being only within his knowledge, the prosecution has a case that about three decades back, following debacle in the Parliamentary byelection of 1969, active workers of leftist party, some of whom had been elected to Parliament and Legislative Assembly from different constituencies, generated with unholy spirit, formed an unlawful assembly, intercepted Ram Angurah Singh alias Annu Singh at about 2.20 p.m. on 7th April, 1969, while he was going to village Bihat from Barauni, caught hold of him, and two of them including the appellant, pumped bullet in his chest and eventually liquidated him. The accusations attributed to those who formed unlawful assembly was that shortly after emerging from opposite direction, while Suro Singh, Sitaram Mishra, Arjun Singh, and Ram Udagar Singh caught hold of Ram Anugrah Singh, those who caught hold of Ram Bilas Singh were Ram Ratan Singh and Umesh Singh. Accusation attributed to Sahdeo Singh and Shankar Singh was that they caught hold of Ramanand Jha (P.W. 2). It was alleged that they took the captives towards north in the field of Ambika Singh where the appellant and Suro Singh took recourse to firing causing injuries on the person of Ramanugrah Singh who dropped to the ground. It was alleged that those forming unlawful assembly, while retreating, also opened fire and with these accusations, fardbeyan of Ram Bilash Singh (P.W. 5) was recorded at Begusarai hospital at 16. hours on 7th April, 1969, pursuant to which, Police came in action, visited the place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, prepared inquest report over the dead body of Ramanugrah Singh, got autopsy held over the dead body and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. Since the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had not come in force by that time, an inquiry, as envisaged under Chapter XVIII of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 commenced during which the State examined four witnesses including Dr. K.D.N. Agrawal. In the year 1977, the case was committed to the Court of Session when charges were framed by the trial court against nine persons only including the appellant on 23rd September, 1981, Suro Singh and Sitaram Mishra having died before commencement of the trial. In the eventual trial, the State examined five witnesses who are Kapildeo Singh (P.W. 1), Ramanand Jha (P.W. 2), Ramashish Singh (P.W. 3) and Shiv Shankar Choudhary (P.W. 4), a formal witness who brought first information report (Exhibit 3) on record, and Ram Bilash Singh (P.W. 5), and the trial court on appraisal and evaluation of the testimony of witnesses including that of the doctor, who was examined during committal proceeding, while negativing contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and others, who were put on trial, about their innocence, while acquitted rest of them of the charges, recorded finding of guilt under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. Though the appellant was found guilty also under section 27 of the Arms Act, however, no separate sentence was passed on that count.

(2.) DEFENCE of the appellant before the court below and also this Court had been denial of the entire allegations and he ascribed false implication due to political rivalry between two factions of political workers. Explicit defence of the appellant was also that the deceased had questionable relationship with the daughter of Laxmi Singh and it was at the instance of Laxmi Singh that the appellant had been falsely roped in. The defence of the appellant was also that sons of said Laxman Singh liquidated Ramanugrah Singh in their house and brought the dead body in the field of Ambika Singh, where he was shown to have been done to death.

(3.) /1/2013 Page 60 Shyam Deo Paswan Versus State Of Bihar place on 7th April, 1969, for which first information report was registered against as many as 11 persons and on conclusion of investigation, the Police laid charge sheet against all of them, pursuant to which the inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code had commenced. As has been stated, the case was committed in the year 1977 pursuant to which charges were framed on 23rd September, 1981. The records bear the fact that after the trial had commenced, the State examined four witnesses following which the prosecution case was closed. Thereafter, a petition was filed on behalf of the State to re -open the prosecution case which on due consideration was rejected by the trial court. Though a revision was also preferred by the State, it is not in dispute that that too stood dismissed. Thereafter, a petition was filed by the State for examination of some witnesses as Court witness and it seems that the informant was examined as P.W. 5. Though the defence also challenged before this Court the protracted trial of the accused persons, that too stood dismissed. 4. Lot of arguments were canvassed at Bar on behalf of the appellant to assail the findings recorded by the trial court and also bona fide of the prosecution case and it is sought to be urged that Ram Bilash Singh, instead of being examined as Court witness, was examined as prosecution witness for which the appellant had serious prejudice. Since the defence had ample opportunity to test the veracity of testimony of the witness in the cross examination, it was quite immaterial as to whether Ram Bilash Singh was examined as Court witness or a prosecution witness and this argument was bereft of legal value. The other contention raised at Bar on behalf of the appellant was that though the defence moved the court below for examination of Laxman Singh and his family members, who were competent witnesses, that too was rejected by the Court without assigning good reasons. The record, however, bears the fact which runs counter to the arguments canvassed at Bar as it appears from the order dated 24th January, 1986, of which judicial notice can be taken by us that even during committal proceeding when such a petition was filed by the defence on 21st November, 1970 that was rejected by the Court, after hearing of the parties. Though the defence carried the matter in revision but the said revision was dismissed by this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 1951 of 1971 and as such it seems that the move made by the defence about examination of Laxman Singh and his family members as Court witnesses had been rejected by the trial court assigning good reasons.