PANCHU MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the sole Appellant Panchu Mandal is directed against the judgment and order both dated 27.8.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Sessions Case No. 125 of 1991 convicting the Appellant under Sections 302/148 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and 27 of Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC. No separate sentence has been passed either under Section 148 IPC or 27 of Arms Act.

(2.) The case of prosecution as disclosed in the fardbeyan (Ext.4) of informant Rajendra Chaudhary (P.W. 6), in short, is that on 31.10.90 at about 12 O'clock in the noon, the informant along with deceased Babu Lai Chaudhary, Prabhu Chaudhary (P.W. 1), Suresh Chaudhary (P.W. 2), Priyanandan Chaudhary (P.W. 5) and Moti Chaudhary (not examined) was sitting in a hut when the Appellant along with his son Sudhir Mandal, his nephew Ranjeet Mandal, Kantesh Mandal, Ramdeo Mandal and son of Nage Rai came there. Appellant who was armed with a 303 (a fire arm) asked for demolishing the wall of the house and vacating the land on which Babu Lal Chaudhary refused to do so and Appellant then wielding 303 pounced on which informant and his associates started running. The informant and deceased both by running reached the 'Kola' (piece of land) of informant where deceased stopped and informant went at the corner of his house situated adjacent to his 'Kola'. The Appellant and his associates came running to the bungala (sitting place outside the house) of informant and surrounded the deceased and thereafter Appellant fired from his 303 on 'Kanpatti' (temple) of deceased. The deceased fell down and blood in copious quantity started oozing out from his head. This occurrence was witnessed by informant, Suresh Chaudhary (P.W. 2) and mother (P.W. 4) and wife (P.W. 8) of deceased but nobody out of fear came forward and Appellant and his associates thereafter fled away through an orchard, by firing in air. Thereafter when informant went near the deceased he found him dead and he also found mark of firing on his temple. About the motive of occurrence, the informant in his fardbeyan has stated that Jagdish Mahto and Vidyanand Mahto (D.W. 4) owned land in the village who agreed to sell this land to informant @ Rs. 24,000/- per bigha and after receiving a sum of Rs. 22,000/- had executed an agreement to sell and thereafter informant and other persons of Pasi Tola were constructing their separate houses on this land but recently Appellant got a sale deed executed from the owners of this land in his favour and was giving pressure to informant and others for vacating the land and because occupants of land were not ready to vacate the land, the murder of deceased was committed On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, formal FIR (Ext. 3) against the Appellant and Kantesh Mandal, Sudhir Mandal, Ranjeet Mandal and son of Nage Rai Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447 and 302 IPC and 27 of Arms Act Was drawn. Police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the Appellant, Ramdeo Mandal and Kantesh Mandal keeping the investigation pending against Sudhir Mandal and Ranjeet Mandal who were absconding. After commitment of the case of Appellant and co-accused Ramdeo Mandal and Kantesh Mandal to the court of Session charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC against all the three and additional charges under Sections 302/148 IPC and 27 of Arms Act against Appellant were framed. The case of Appellant before the court below as it appears from the trend of cross examination of prosecuting witnesses and evidence of defence witnesses was that deceased was murdered by one Piun Singh and Appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of land dispute. After trial Appellant was found guilty under Sections 302 and 148 IPC and 27 of Arms Act and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life Under Section 302 IPC but no separate sentence was passed against him under Sections 148 IPC and 27 of Arms Act. The remaining two other co-accused persons namely, Ramdeo Mandal and Kantesh Mandal who faced trial with Appellant were not found guilty and they were acquitted.

(3.) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. Rajendra Chaudhary (P.W. 6) is informant. Prabhu Chaudhary (P.W. 1), Suresh Chaudhary (P.W. 2), Indu Devi (P.W. 4), Priyanandan Chaudhary (P.W. 5) and Uma Devi (P.W. 8) are said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. Dr. N.N. Bhagat (P.W. 9) is the doctor who had held autopsy on the dead body of deceased. Tripurari Singh (P.W. 10) is a police officer who had submitted chargesheet in this case. Mahendra Chaudhary (P.W. 3) is a formal witness who has proved his signature (Ext.1) on the inquest report. Chaitu Chaudhary (P.W. 7) who is father of deceased, has said that on the day of occurrence he had gone to Bhagalpur and when he returned from there he came to know that his son had been killed and he saw the dead body of deceased on the bungala of informant who told him that Appellant along with Sudhir Mandal, Kantesh Mandal, Ramdeo Mandal and Ranjeet Mandal had killed his son.