STATE OF BIHAR Vs. PRABHU BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.08.1991 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case No.232 of 1986/82 of 1987 by which the respondents were acquitted of charge under Sections 302/149 IPC. Out of six respondents, respondent no.4 Ganesh Singh, who had been charged also under Section 302 IPC, was acquitted of that charge too. In addition to the present Govt. Appeal filed by the State of Bihar, the informant has also filed the connected Cr. Revision petition challenging the same judgment of acquittal which is impugned in the present government appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution story as contained in the fardbeyan (Ext -3) of the informant Chandra Bhushan Singh (P.W.5) was that he along with his brother and father were sleeping at his bathan (cattle shed). His brother Chandra Shekhar Singh was sleeping on a Machan in the northern part of the cattle shed. The father of the deceased, namely, Bishundeo Singh (P.W.1) was sleeping on the floor of the Bathan. It so happened that at about 2 A.M. the informant picked up the cries of his brother who was shouting for help and on that he and his father rushed towards his brother to find that the respondents had caught hold of Chandra Shekhar Singh and accused Ganesh Singh fired from his pistol. It is further alleged that respondent no.1 Prabhu Bhagat gave a bhala blow at the orders of respondent Ganesh Singh and that blow fell on the head of the deceased on which he fell down on the ground. The other accused persons assaulted the deceased with lathies and on hulla being raised and persons converging upon the place of occurrence, the accused persons made good their escape.

(3.) THE defence of the accused persons was that they had falsely been implicated due to suspicion and indeed it was a blind murder committed in the cover of darkness and no one indeed had seen as to who had committed the twin murders. The accused persons also pleaded that they did not have any land dispute with the informant.