UDAI KANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANCES are not very uncommon when atrocious crimes are committed to avenge some wrongs committed, and the instant case is an illustration of that, as it is alleged that Surendra Mandal, father of Subodh Mandal (P.W. 3), was shot dead by Dilip Singh, only because he failed to oblige him to keep his cattle in his cattle shed, notwithstanding payment of the debt taken by him. The factual matrix are that in the early hours of morning at about 6 a.m. on 19th August, 1992, while Surendra Mandal (deceased) along with his two sons, namely, Amod Kumar Mandal (PW2) and Subodh Mandal (PW3), was returning aftergrazing she-buffalo and hardly reached the field of Atma Singh, that the appellants came and encircled him, pursuant to which an altercation ensued between them, and it was alleged that shortly thereafter, on exhortation made by Uday Kant Singh alias Uday Singh, Dilip Singh shot dead Surendra Mandal who dropped injured and eventually succumbed to the injuries. Motive assigned behind the gruesome killing of Surendra Mandal was his reluctance to keep his buffalo in the cattle shed of the appellants for which he had already liquidated all the debt, which he had taken while purchasing the cattle. Subodh Mandal, shortly thereafter rushed to Parbatta Police Station to take recourse to public authority. However, it sums from the judgment of the Court below and the recitals made in the First Information Report that though the Police Officer came to the place of occurrence but did not institute a police case, the place of occurrence lying within the jurisdiction of Bariarpur Police Station. Worried sons of the deceased, finding no option, took the dead body tcrPratap Basa and informed the Bariarpur Police Station and also took the dead body to the police station where statement of Subodh Mandal (PW3) was recorded at 9 a.m. on 20th August, 1992 by Shri R. Baitha, Officer-in-charge, Bariarpur Police Station, pursuant to which Police came into action and investigation commenced. During usual investigation, Police recorded statement of witnesses, prepared inquest report over the dead body of deceased Surendra Mandal, visited the place of occurrence, got autopsy held over the dead body, secured post-mortem report and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court to put the appellants on trial. In the eventual trial that commenced against the appellants, the State examined altogether 10 witnesses including wife and two sons of the deceased, the doctor, who held autopsy over the dead body of Surendra Mandal, some formal witnesses and also those who expressed their familiarity with the incident.

(2.) THE defence of the appellants before the Court below, as was suggested to Subodh Mandal (PW 3) was that Surendra Mandal, who bore criminal antecedent, was killed some where within the jurisdiction of Bariarpur Police Station near Munger for which the appellants were falsely roped in the case. However, the trial Court on negativing contentions, raised on behalf of the appellants about their innocence, relying principally on the testimonies of PWs 2, 3 and 6 rendered verdict of guilt finding Dilip Singh guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Uday Singh under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Dilip Singh suffered conviction also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(3.) OTHER witnesses, who did not express their familiarity with the incident were Shyamdeo Mandal (PW 4), who was witness only to the preparation of the inquest report and seizure memo prepared by the Police Officer, Parmanand Sharma (PW 9), an advocate clerk, was put in the witness box only to bring the First Information Report on record and similar was the case with Om Prakash Yadav (PW 10), who brought certain entries made in the police case diary onjtie record.