RAJ MANGAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 30.6.1990 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 280 of 1987, whereby and whereunder, the appellants Raj Mangal Singh, Kishori Singh and Bhajan Sah have been convicted for offence under Section 302, 302/114 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 though no separate sentence has been passed for offence under Section 302 and 302/114 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, appellants Ram Pravesh Sah, Faguni Sah, Baban Sah, Lagan Sah, Manjhi Sah and Babu Nandan Sah have been convicted for offence under Section 302/114 as also under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302/149 I.P.C. though no separate sentence has been passed under Section 302/114 against them as well.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the appellants had been lodged at the instance of the informant Mal Guzari Sah (P.W.8) who in his Fardbeyan (Exbt.-4) recorded at his Bathan on 22.7.1987 at 8.30 a.m. had stated that in the preceding night of 21-22/7.1987 while he was sleeping in his Bathan and his son Jagdish Sah (deceased) was sleeping outside on a bench, all the appellants had come to Darwaja of his Bathan, whereafter, appellant Ram Pravesh Sah and Babu Nand Sah had gagged his (informant) mouth as a result whereof, he had woken up from his sleep and thereafter is said to have also seen his son Jagdish Sah (deceased) to have been caught hold by the appellant Rajmangal Singh and Bhajan Sah while appellant Kishori Singh as also Bhajan Sah to have cut his neck whereas the rest of the appellants had been standing encircling his son, the deceased. The informant had also claimed that after the said occurrence, all the appellant had ran away towards eastern side whereafter he had seen the neck of his son Jagdish Sah (deceased) severed and blood also oozing out over there. The informant thereafter is said to have raised Hulla on which Ram Swarath Sah (P.W.2) and Ram Jee Sah (P.W.1) had reached at his bathan who could also give on account of the occurrence seen by them. It is the specific case of the informant in his Fardbeyan itself that on account of darkness, he could not visualize any weapon held by the appellants in their hand. The motive as per the informant for the said occurrence was an old enmity between the informant on the one side and Bhajan Sah and Lagan Sah on the other.

(3.) THE defence of the appellants as would appear from the trend of the cross-examination as also from evidence of defence witnesses examined by them appear to be one of their complete innocence and their false implication on account of previous enmity.