MURARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants, full brothers, stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the India Penal Code ("the Code", in short) and sentenced to imprisonment for life. First information report (Exhibit-1) was lodged by informant Ram Pravesh Ram (P.W. 9), father of the deceased Deep Narain aged about nine years, on 18.10.1995 at 7.45 p.m.

(2.) Briefly stated, the informant in Exhibit-1 alleged that on 17.10.1995 the deceased had gone to field with she buffalo where he met with appellant Murari Singh who asked him to caress his private part which his son did out of fear, but related the incident in the evening to his parents at which the informant with Arun Kumar (P.W. 2) and Dukhan Ram (P.W. 3) visited appellant Murari Singh to lodge his complaint at which Murari Singh, in rage, abused him and threatened to eliminate his son whereafter they returned back. On the date of occurrence in tne afternoon at about 4.30 p.m. when the she buffalo returned back but not his son, he started searching for him along with the aforesaid two witnesses, Tun Tun Kumar (P.W. 6) and others. After some time P.W. 3, Dukhan Ram, P.W. 5 Rarnraj Prasad, and P.W. 6 Tun Tun Kumar informed him that they had seen the appellants carrying his son from their house and throwing the dead body in the nearby river. Informant claimed that then he and co-villagers went there and fished out his dead body from the river which he found bleeding from nose and from the left temple. On careful scrutiny they also located a small hole in the left temple. The claim was that the appellants had killed his son with fire-arm and had thrown the body.

(3.) The defence, as emerging from the suggestion thrown to P.W. 2 would appear to be that appellant Murari Singh had a fair price shop and the witnesses wanted goods from the shop and implicated the appellant when they did not succeed. P.W. 6 was suggested that a day earlier the deceased was assaulted in the School by the teacher whereafter he had fled away from the house. This witness was also suggested that the witnesses of the case including Dukhan Ram, and others were accused in Chandi P.S. Case No. 282 of 1994 which case was being looked after by the appellants and for these reasons the witnesses in collusion with each other had falsely implicated the appellants.