YOGENDRA RAWANI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the penal Code) for the murder of Dr. Phani Bhusan Sikdar (Dr. Sikdar) and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. All the appellants except appellant No. 2, have also been found guilty under Section 147 of the Penal Code and they have been sentenced to one year Rigorous Imprisonment. Appellant No. 2 has been found guilty under Section 148 of the Penal Code and has been sentenced to two years Rigorous Imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) At about 9.30 p.m. on 18-1-1974 PW 5 Uday Bhanu Ojha lodged an information with the police that the appellants had caused the death of Dr. Sikdai-. According to the prosecution on 18-1-1974 at about 8.45 p.m. Dr. Sikdar was returning with PW 5 from the house of PW 8 where he had gone to attend his ailing wife. When PW 5 and Dr. Sikdar came near the railway track in village Haria Joba, the appellants variously armed suddenly appeared on the scene and surrounded Dr. Sikdar and shouted Maro-Maro. Appellant No. 1. Yogendra, hit Dr. Sikdar with lathi and Dr. Sikdar fell down. PW 5 in order to save themselves hit appellant No. 1 on the head by a lathi which appellant (?) No. 5 was carrying, whereupon appellant No. 2, Surendra wielded a bhala on PW 5 which the tatter warded off by wielding his lathi. Appellant No. 2 thereafter hit Dr. Sikdar with the bhala on the neck and thereafter appellants who were variously-armed also assaulted. Dr. Sikdar died as a result of the injuries. PW 5 went to the house of PW 8 and informed about the occurrence whereupon PW 8 advised PW 5 to go to the police station and lodge the information. PW 5 thereafter went to the police station and lodged the information.

(3.) In the first information report it was stated that PWs 1 and 2 had their shop near the house of PW 8 and they were going with PW 5 and Dr. Sikdar to Chatatand Bazar at Kenduadih. According to the prosecution, they also saw the occurrence and supported the case of the prosecution in the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer. However, during trial both of them did not support the case of the prosecution and the trial court allowed the prosecution to cross-examine them. On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution the trial court found the appellants guilty of the charges. We will, therefore, have to see whether besides PW 5, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 can also be relied upon as eyewitnesses,