JAMUNA PANDIT, SON OF SHRI RAM BHAJAN PANDIT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUSSI, POLICE STATION MAKHDUMPUR, DISTRICT JEHANABAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CR . Appeal No. 2 of 1990 (D.B.) filed by Jamuna Pandit and Cr. Appeal No. 7 of 1990 filed by Umesh Pandit @ Umaid, Arbind Pandit and Dinesh Pandit have been heard together because both the appeals have arisen out of a common judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.1989 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1988/ 158 of 1987 whereby all the appellants were held guilty under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Umaid @ Umesh Pandit was further held guilty under Section 302/109 I.P.C. Arvind Pandit and Umesh Pandit were further held guilty under Section 323 I.P.C. All the appellants were sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 I.P.C. No separate sentence was passed against the appellant Umaid @ Umesh Pandit under Section 302/109 I.P.C. Umesh Pandit and Arvind Pandit were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 323 IPC. The prosecution case, as per written report of informant Ranjan Mistri (P.W. 6) - covillager of the appellants given on 31.3.1986 at 7.30 a.m. addressed to the Officer -in -Charge, Makhdumpur Police Station was that on the same date at about preceeding 6 a.m. the informant (P.W. 6) along with his father Lakhan Mistri (P. W. 5) was harvesting barley crop. At that very time accused Umesh Pandit @ Umaid, Dinesh Pandit, Arvind Pandit and Jamuna Pandit came there. Jamuna Pandit and Umesh Pandit were having lathi and Dinesh Pandit and Arvind Pandit were having garasa. After arriving at the field Umesh Pandit ordered to assault upon which Dinesh Pandit and Arvind Pandit assaulted from garasa as a result of which the informant's head was broken. Lakhan Mistry and Raju Mistri were assaulted by lathi. On informant's cry Ramanand Sharma (not examined), Ramswaroop Mistri (not examined), Lalan Mistry (P.W. 1) and Ramashish Mahto (not examined) came, intervened and specified the matter. Written report signed by Ranjan Mistry, son of Lakhan Mistry (P.W. 5) has been marked as Ext. 1. Formal FIR (Ext. 3) of Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 45 of 1986 under Section 324/323/34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Injured Raju Mistry was taken to Patna Medical Hospital for treatment but he died and so by order of the Court Section 302 IPC was added. After commencement of investigation, Inquest Report (Ext. 4), Post -mortem Report (Ext. 5), Injury Reports (Ext. 2 to 2/2) were obtained. Statement of witnesses was recorded and finding the allegation to be true charge -sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions where charge under Section 302/34 IPC was explained to Umesh Pandit, Arbind Pandit, Dinesh Pandit and Jamuna Pandit, charge under Section 323 IPC was further explained to Umesh Pandit and Jamuna Pandit for causing hunt to Lakhan Mistry, charge under Section 323 IPC was further explained to Dinesh Pandit and Arbind Pandit for causing hunt to Ranjan Mistry, and charge under Section 302/109 IPC was further explained to Umesh Pandit. The accused persons pleaded innocence and so the trial proceeded.

(2.) THE defence of the appellants was of false implication on account of enmity. The further defence was that the prosecution has not given true version and the death was not in the manner as alleged.

(3.) THIS Court is required to see as to the whether the prosecution has been able to prove its charge against the appellants beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts or not.