SUCHIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Appellant Prabhat Kumar Singh who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 148, 302 IPC and been directed to undergo R.I. for two years as well as, R.I. for life respectively, appellants Bharat Singh, Suchit Singh, Dilip Kumar Singh (since deceased) and Bachu Singh (since deceased) have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 147, 302/149 of the IPC and further been directed to undergo R.I. for one year, R.I. for life respectively, appellant Bharat Singh, Dilip Kumar Singh (since deceased), Suchit Singh, Prabhat Kumar Singh, Bachu Singh (since deceased) have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for two years vide judgment dated 13.07.1990 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in Sessions Trial No.299 /1988 have preferred instant appeals. Accordingly they have been heard together and the appeals are being disposed off by common judgment.

(2.) P .W.-2 Shakaldeep Singh gave his fardbeyan (Exhibit-5) on 27.04.1987 at 05:30 P.M. while he was admitted at State Dispensary, Bihea before S.I., Bihea alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 04:00 P.M. while his elder brother Pradeep Singh (deceased) was returning from his orchard lying east to his house and as soon as reached near ditch lying behind his house, all on a sudden Bharat Singh, Suchit Singh, Prabhat Kumar Singh, Dilip Kumar Singh, Bachu Singh hedged him. He rushed to that place. Meanwhile they all have assaulted Pradeep Singh who felled down and then he too was assaulted by them. On his cry Bhuneshwar Singh (not examined), Ram Pravesh Singh (not examined), Mritunjay Singh (not examined), Ram Kumar Singh (not examined) along with others came. Then thereafter, Prabhat Kumar Singh hurled bomb over his brother causing injury upon him and during said course, he (Prabhat Kumar Singh) also sustained injury. Thereafter he along with his brother were lifted to Bihea hospital and from there his brother has been referred to Arrah Sadar Hospital. Land dispute has been shown to be motive for commission of occurrence.

(3.) THE defence as is evident from the mode of cross- examination as well as from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial of occurrence as well as of innocence. There has also been plea of alibi on behalf of appellants Suchit Singh. However, the appellants examined four witnesses and exhibited series of documents not only confining the plea of alibi relating to appellant Suchit Singh, rather counter version had also been brought up on record. Because of the fact that certain glaring defect has been