KRISHNA RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appellants, who are brothers, are aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.07.1991 and 08.07.1991 respectively as passed by the Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 227 of 1987. They have been held guilty under Section - 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short 'IPC') and convicted to life imprisonment. Appellant -Gonaur Rai has further been found guilty under Section -323 IPC for causing hurt to the informant and sentenced to further six months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE first thing to be noted is that the informant is the own brother of the two appellants and the deceased was the eldest amongst four brothers. The prosecution story is based upon the fardbeyan of Shivji Rai (P.W. 10), the brother of the deceased and the brother of the appellants, as recorded by Lal Bihari Rai, Investigating Officer (P.W. 14), inter alia, alleging therein that on 06.12.1986 at about 12 noon when the informant was returning from his work to his home he saw the two appellants quarreling with the deceased Mundrika Rai, their eldest brother. The appellants then struck Mundrika Rai on the head with the 'Pharsa' and when he fell down they strangulated him by putting lathi across his neck and pressing it. When they ensured that he was dead they left him and escaped. On hearing the shouts several neighbours including Jagan Rai (P.W. 2), Sudisht Rai (P.W. 3) and Munshi Rai (P.W. 5) came and saw the occurrence. It is further stated that when the informant tried to save his eldest brother Mundrika Rai, Gonaur Rai struck him with 'Pharsa' on his head. He was struck by lathi as well. Krishna Rai attacked on the head and Gonaur Rai struck with lathi. The reason for this incident was that the two appellants were demanding partition in property. Upon the F.I.R. being registered, the inquest report was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem. The informant was sent to the doctor for preparing injury report. Upon completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted against the appellants and after charges having been framed, the appellants having pleaded not guilty, they faced trial and convicted, as stated above. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) THE sequence in which the prosecution witnesses have been examined is of some importance and, therefore, we would consider their evidence in the sequence in which they were produced in the Court. P.W. 1 is Dr. B.N. Mishra who conducted the postmortem of Mundrika Rai, the deceased. He finds skull fracture at two places with haematoma underneath. He also finds fracture and blood clots in the neck. These injuries are prima facie consistent with the allegations as contained in the fardbeyan of the informant and his deposition in Court.