TARKESHWAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Above noted both the appeals have been taken up together because both of them have arisen out of common judgment dated 7th December, 1990 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 182 of 1989/10 of 1089 (A.S.J. VIII) whereby all the appellants were convicted under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Regarding killing of Pinki @ Shailendra Kumar Sinha at 7.00 PM on 4.7.1988 the fard-beyan (Ext. 1) was given by PW 8-Prabodh Ranjan Sinha at 7.30 PM at the place of occurrence wherein the informant described that his brother was having high-tea with the informant. After high-tea, the informant proceeded towards Panchmahala Lane, Manoj, Tarkeshwar Singh and 2-3 unknown persons were also seen going in the lane. Sometime thereafter, shots of firing were heard and the informant noticed Manoj and Tarkeshwar escaping with pistols. Informant's cousin Pinki was found killed by the firearms. The accused persons were seen escaping by Arbind Kumar Pathak (PW 2) and other persons of the locality. Pinki was realizing toll on behalf of the contractors of lodging houses. Manoj and Tarkeshwar used to demand ransom which was not given by Pinki which led to his killing. The head was blown up. One country made pistol was found kept near the dead body. The fard-beyan resulted into registration of formal FIR (Ext. 4) vide Civil Lines P.S. Case No. 270 dated 4.10.1988 under sections 302/34 of the IPC and the investigation commenced. The fard-beyan had Arbind Kumar Pathak as its attesting witness. The place of occurrence was investigated into. Statements of witnesses were recorded and chargesheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where charge under sections 302/34 of the IPC was explained to the appellants to which they pleaded their innocence and preferred to face trial. Their defence was of false and malicious implication. Their further defence was that the deceased Pinki and the informant were accused in a case registered u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered as Civil Lines P.S. Case No. 251 of 1987. The deceased and the informant (PW 8) were charge sheeted vide Final Report No. 260 dated 10.11.1987. The informant (PW 8) was coercing the appellant and his father for deposing against them and when that was not accepted, then taking benefit of death of cousin, a false case was lodged.

(2.) Before the trial court the prosecution has examined PW 1 Farjan Ali Khan, PW 2 Arbind Kumar Pathak, PW 3 Jai Shankar Prasad, PW 4 Jaibendra Kumar Sinha, PW 5 Birendra Prasad Singh, PW 6 Birendra Kumar Sinha, PW 7 Dr. Arbind Prasad, PW 8 Prabodh Ranjan Sinha and PW 9 Raghunath Chaudhary. The inquest report and seizure list were exhibited as Ext. 5 and 6. PW 1 was a formal witness and proved the writing of the Investigating Officer. PWs 2 and 3 have deposed that they have gone to the place of occurrence after hearing the sound of firing and they have been examined as hearsay witness. PWs 2 and 3 are inquest report witness also. PW 4 is another hearsay witness who has come to know about the occurrence from the informant PW 8. PW 5 has been examined as eye witness. PW 6 is a formal witness. PW 7 has held autopsy upon the dead body of Pinki @ Shailendra Kumar. PW 8 is the informant and PW 9 is the Investigating officer.

(3.) On behalf of the defence a document relating to a case u/s 302 IPC has been exhibited as Ext. A.