ROOPCHAND MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants in all these appeals. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Ranbir Singh and Ms. Abha Singh are appointed Amicus Curiae in these cases to assist this Court.

(2.) These criminal appeals arise out of Sessions Case No. 353/88 and Sessions Case No. 353A/88. The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger has found the appellants, Jai Mangal Mandal and Umesh Mandal @ Uma Mandal guilty of offences under Sections 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them to R.I. for three years and two years respectively. Appellants Roopchand Mandal, Surendra Mandal, Tunuk Mandal and Hafla Mandal have been found guilty under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(3.) The prosecution case as per the informant Sachchidanand Kunwar is based on a written report given by him on 15.5.1987 for an occurrence which took place on 14.5.1987. In the written report he has stated that he was going to the market. When he reached the main road, the appellants armed with pistol and rifle came to the place of occurrence. Jai Mangal Mandal is said to have told his accomplices that the informant is responsible for stopping them from stealing 'Parwal' (vegetable). After which he fired at him which did not hit him. It is alleged that Umesh Mandal also fired at him which also did not hit him. In the meantime, the miscreants took away Rs. 450/- from him. It is said that Rajendra, Surendra, Arjun Kumar and one Kirani witnessed the occurrence. He has stated that the appellants were all mounted on horses. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the trial commenced and four witnesses were examined. The F.I.R. witnesses have been examined and claimed that they were also traveling on the same road when they saw the appellant commit the said acts. All three of them admit that they cannot give details regarding the weapons carried by the appellants. Some of them have stated that they arrived on the alarm raised by the informant whereas P.W. 3 has specifically stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, the appellants were not present at the place of occurrence, therefore, it appears that these witnesses actually came to the place of occurrence after it took place and on hearing the sound of the alleged firing. They have also not supported the case that the appellants had a scuffle with the informant and had taken away Rs. 450/- as such it cannot be said that these witnesses had seen the manner in which the occurrence had taken place.