PRABHAT YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN ail twenty accused had faced trial in the lower Court out of whom ten were acquitted of the charges against them but the ten appellants of the aforesaid five appeals were found guilty in the manner that appellants Parshuram Yadav, Ram Karan Yadav and Ballam @ Raj Ballam Yadav were convicted under section under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ("the Code," in short) as well under section 148 of the Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for rigorous imprisonment for two years, respectively, each. Rest of the appellants were convicted under section 302 read with section 149 of the Code as well under section 148 of the Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for two years, respectively.

(2.) THE fact matrix of the case as coming out of the first information report (Exhibit 4) containing fardbayan of P.W.1, Bhuneshwar Yadav son of the deceased Bal Chand Yadav is that when on 17.2.1993 at about 7 P.M. he was going to irrigate his field, he saw some persons in police dress coming with many others but soon he realised that they were extremists and were going to attack his house because of previous enmity, being armed with firearms and fasuli. They asked the name of his father at which he named his uncle, Nathun Yadav (P.W. 6), still they tied his hands and legs with his Lungi and pushed him down. Ram Ratan Yadav threatened him that he would deal with him while returning. Somehow he untied, and concealed, himself, and saw the occurrence in the light ot torch held by the accused. The informant named the accused persons and their weapons whereafter he said that some of them dragged out his father from house and at northern entrance cut his neck with fasuli and again dragged him towards the western wall, cutting the abdomen with fasuli. Parshuram Yadav, Ram Karan and Ballam Yadav had so assaulted with fasuli. Appellants Birendra Yadav and Prabhat Yadav also had assaulted his mother with lathi. While leaving the place they threatened them to withdraw the case otherwise rest also would be done away with. The informant claimed that the reason for occurrence was animosity with regard to the lands. Nathun Yadav (P.W. 6) and Nageshwar Yadav (P.W. 4) have specifically been named as witnesses to the occurrence.

(3.) OUT of the rest P.W. 1 is the informant, and his brother Madheshwar Yadav and Ranvijay Kumar (P.Ws. 2 and 3) have also come as eye witnesses. In this case some of witnesses have been examined more than once to which I will come presently.