JANGAL CHAURASIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Sachidanand Sah has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302, 342 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and been directed to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 of the IPC, RI for one year under Section 342 of the IPC as well as R.I. for five years under Section 27 of the Arms Act while appellants Jangal Chaurasia, Ram Padarath Chauraisa @ Sukan Chaurasia and Bishun Narayan Sah have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302/34, 342 of the IPC and been directed to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302/34 of the IPC and R.I. for one year under Section 342 of the IPC, Appelant Ram Padarath Chauraisa @ Sukan Chaurasia has further been found guilty for an offences punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and been directed to undergo R.I. for five years, with a direction to run the aforesaid sentences concurrently by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.09.1990 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.110 of 1988 / 11 of 1988 have preferred these two appeals, which have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details the prosecution case in brief is that the, informant Sadhu Saran Mahto (P.W. 4) had given his fardbeyan (Ext.2) on 31.01.1986 at 08:30 P.M. at Bhagwanpur P.S. in presence of Ramudgar Sharma, Phulena Rai, Brijdeo Rai and Dinesh Chaurasia, alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 04:30 P.M. while he along with Brijdeo Rai and Ram Padarath Poddar was preparing tobacco at crossing near library lying east to his village, he saw his son Raja Ram Mahto aged about 15 years coming from eastern side from his field to his house. It is alleged that as soon as his son reached at road near Chandadih School, appellants Sachidanand Sah @ Kaila Sah, Ram Padarath Chaurasia @ Sukan Chaurasia, Bishun Narain Sah, Jangal Chaurasia came running to his son Raja Ram, caught hold him and then appellant Sachidanand Sah, who was armed with pistol, shot at him from point blank range and his son fell down. It has also been alleged that appellant Sukan Chaurasia also fired from his pistol at the son of informant and he after hearing sound of firing rushed raising alarm that his son has been shot at. He has claimed that at that very moment, his another son Daya Ram Mahto was coming through the road passing by the side of school whereas his co-villager Dhani Lal Mahto, Basudeo Poddar were also coming. All the accused persons having caused aforesaid injury thereafter had escaped towards southern direction and during course of lifting, his son had disclosed that while appellants Kaila, Sukan, Bishun Narain and Jangal had apprehended him it was appellant Kaila had shot at him. The informant thereafter took his son to Padari Hospital, Mokama on a jeep along with his co-villager Ramudgar Sharma, Phulena Rai where the doctor after examining his son had declared him dead and had also disclosed that the dead body of his son will be handed over on the next day after holding his postmortem. The informant claimed that thereafter he returned back to P.S. to lodge his First Information Report. The motive for the aforesaid occurrence has been alleged by the informant to be some litigation between appellant Kaila Sah and his step brother Prabhat Sah wherein he had taken side on behalf of Prabhat Sah.

(3.) NOW coming to evidence, it is found that P.W.2 Ghuni Lal Mahto and P.W.5, Brajdeo Rai were declared hostile. P.W.8 Rabindra Prasad Singh happens to be formal in nature as he had simply exhibited plaint of title suit no.11 of 1980 as well as show cause filed by accused in 107 Cr.P.C. proceeding.