SHYAMDEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DECEASED Savitri Devi and appellant Shyamdeo Singh, father of appellant Pappu Singh were agnates. Land disputes had been persisting between parties, for which evidences do suggest that litigations pending in the Court were subjudice. Narrations of material facts of the case in brief, would be essential to consider the contentions raised. As Shyamdeo Singh had uprooted musoor crop from the field of Savitri Devi, she had been to his house when she questioned him for his acts, more so when a title suit with respect to the land was yet sub -judice before the Court, Pappu Singh, son of Shyamdeo Singh and brother - in -law of Pappu Singh, namely, Sunil Singh, who happens to be other appellant, allegedly came there and abused her. It was, however, Shyamdeo Singh, who set the ball in motion, as on his exhortation, both Pappu Singh and brother -in -law fired shots on him. Allegedly, while shots fired by Pappu Singh had hit chest of Savitri Devi, who dropped injured, his brother -in -law fired successive shots behind the ear of the injured. The injured eventually succumbed to the injuries and one who took recourse to public authority and set the criminal law in motion happens to be son of the deceased.

(2.) FARDBEYCM was recorded by police at 11 hours on 23rd March, 1997. at village Tetri. As usual investigation commenced, in course of which, Police Officer, who took up investigation, recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, noticed blood -stains there, prepared inquest report over the dead body of the deceased, got autopsy held over the dead body of Savitri Devi, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge - sheet before the Court. At trial, that followed, prosecution sought to establish guilt of the appellants with the aid of evidence of ten witnesses who happen to be family members of the deceased, neighbours, other witnesses who came from other village, the doctor and also the Police Officer.

(3.) THE trial Court having given due consideration to the testimony of witnesses, some of whom had claimed to be ocular, and considering intrinsic value of the testimony, while negativing plea of innocence of the appellants, recorded finding of guilt against the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Though Pappu Singh and Anil Singh alias Sunil Singh also suffered conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the trial Court had not chosen to award sentence on that count to them.