BIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge -I, Munger on 9th/16th of March, 1999 in Sessions Case No. 3.59 of 1996. He convicted the appellant, Ashok Singh, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants, Bijay Singh and Sunil Singh under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment. No separate sentence was awarded to the appellant, Ashok Singh, for his further conviction under Sections 302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE incident which led to the prosecution of the appellants took place in the evening of 3.10.1995 in Village -Tarhari, P.S. Halsi, District -Lakhisarai, where Bachhu Singh, was killed by the accused -appellants. The case of the prosecution is that the informant, Bachhu Singh, after taking meal was going to school to pay obeisance to goddess Durga. When he reached near Plot No. 727, all of a sudden all the three accused -appellants appeared near him and asked him about the fighting cases against them. In the mean time, the accused, Bijay Singh and Sunil Singh, caught hold of him and the accused, Ashok Singh, pierced chhura in his abdomen and he fell down injured on the ground and blood started oosing out from the injured portion of his abdomen. The witnesses, Ram Uday Singh PW 4 and Narayan Singh, witnessed the occurrence. It further, appears that on the hulla raised by the informant, his family members, Janardan Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Pramod Kumar and many others arrived there and removed him to State Dispensary, Sikandara and from there to Nawada for treatment.

(3.) THE defence of the appellants is a plea of innocence and false implication because of land dispute existing in between the parties from before the date of occurrence. Their further defence is that the deceased, Bachhu Singh, himself was a litigant and his killing by unknown persons was not seen by any body but PW 4, Ram Uday Singh, falsely projected himself as an eye -witness to the occurrence. Their further defence is that PW 4, Ram Uday Singh, is himself a veteran criminal and has given the evidence in so many cases for the informant. At the same time a truck looted case and many others are pending against this witness which he has admitted in his evidence. On behalf of the defence two witnesses were also examined.