MUNARIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 28th October, 1980, Dineshwar Singh, former Mukhiya of Jalpura Gram Panchayat, who was residing in the community hall of village Paharpura, was shot dead by five known and two unidentified persons, for which prosecution was launched on behest of son of the deceased, pursuant to which the Police visited place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, seized offending objects from the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report over the dead body, sent the dead body for post mortem examination and eventually, on receipt of the post mortem report, laid charge sheet before the Court, In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined 12 witnesses, who were the family members of the deceased, the villagers, Police Officers, Judicial Magistrate and also the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.

(2.) The defence of the appellants has been that of plain innocence, and explicit defence of appellant Munarik Singh was that of alibi to suggest his physical impossibility at the place of occurrence on the material time of incident. The defence too examined three witnesses, obviously to counter allegations attributed to the appellants. The trial Court, however, on consideration of evidences placed on the record on behalf of both the parties, while rejecting contentions of the appellants about their false implication, recorded verdict of guilt finding Parma Singh guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The trial Court found him guilty also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years, Munarik Singh, Sudarshan Singh Azad, Rajaram Singh, Rama Singh and Ram Parikha Singh suffered conviction under Sections 302/149, IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Munarik Singh. Rama Singh and Ram Parikha Singh suffered conviction also under Section 27 of the Arms Act for which they too were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years. In case of those, who suffered conviction and were sentenced on two counts, sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) Though narration made by Ramjanam Singh (PW 6) who was son of the deceased, was broadly reiteration of his early version, which he rendered before the Police, some sort of embelishments were sought to be introduced in his evidence not only about manner of occurrence but also about the mode of assault on the deceased. The witness while reiterating his early version states at trial that when he came to canal to ease himself and was washing hands and mouth, he heard sounds emanating from the community hall and also, the screaming of his father. When he came above the canal and flashed light of torch, he noticed Munarik Singh, Parma Singh, Rama Singh, and Parikha Singh holding guns, Rajaram Singh holding wooden hard and blunt substance and other holding lethal weapons. He noticed his father running towards east from the community hall, pursuant to which, Parma Singh opened fire which hit scalp of the deceased who dropped dead Ram Dhayan Singh (PW 2) was washing mouth and hands in the canal, after he came there on responding to the call of nature. He heard sound of firing emanating from the community hall and also heard Mukhiya raising alarms. In the flash light of torch, he claimed to have noticed Munarik Singh, Parma Singh, Rama Singh, and Parikha Singh holding guns, Rajaram Singh holding wooden hard and blunt sub-stance who were chasing Mukhiya. The witness stated to have noticed Parma Singh opening firing which hit the head of Mukhya who dropped dead. The vertex to the deceased was blown off.