GANESH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid appeals preferred under Sec. 374(2) read with Sec. 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 24/6/2017 and 30/6/2017, passed by the learned Court of Fast Track-I, Nalanda (hereafter referred to as "the learned Trial Judge"), in Sessions Trial Case No. 516 of 2010 (arising out of Sarmera P.S. Case No. 34 of 2006), hence these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by the present common judgment and order. By the said judgment dtd. 24/6/2017, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellants of the aforesaid appeals under Sec. 302/34 and Sec. 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the I.P.C.) and under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec. 302/34 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.10,000.00 and in default thereof, they have been further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellants have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sec. 307/34 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default thereof, they have been further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, apart from the appellants having also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 with fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that on 4/7/2006 at about 21:00 hours, the fardbeyan of the informant, Arvind Kumar Yadav (P.W.6), was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sri A. N. Mandal, Officer-in-Charge, Sarmera Police Station. In his fardbeyan, Arbind Kumar Yadav (informant) has stated that the petromax was burning at the door of his house and he was sitting at the chabutra along with his grandfather Kailash Yadav (P.W.2), and Bhushan Yadav (P.W.5) at the door of his house and was talking to the Panchayat Sevak of Mirnagar Panchayat, namely Suresh Yadav (deceased) and Bimal Yadav (P.W.10). On the said day i.e. 4/7/2006, annual puja had been organized at the Devi Sthan, situated towards the east of the house of the informant in which goat etc. was cut and Panchayat Sevak, Suresh Yadav, had come at about 4:00 in the day time to give information to the Mukhiya about the BPL Aam Sabha, whom the informant had requested to stay back for having prasad of the aforesaid puja. Bimal Yadav (P.W.10), who is Doctor by profession, had also come to give medicine to the grandfather of the informant, who was suffering from fever. The informant has further stated that all the said five people were sitting on the Chabutra and talking to each other when from the lane situated on the western side (Beldar Toli), co-villagers, namely Sudarshan Chauhan armed with country made rifle, Ganesh Chauhan armed with country made rifle, Lalit Chauhan armed with country made gun, Yadu Yadav armed with country made gun, Krishna Yadav armed with country made gun and Dinesh Kumar @ Police armed with country made gun, arrived at the Chabutra, whereafter Krishna Yadav said that if they do not enter into a compromise in the pending case, they would reap the consequences, whereafter Krishna Yadav fired on the persons sitting on the Chabutra and as soon as Krishna had fired, the other aforesaid accused persons had also fired on them, whereupon the informant had ran and hid himself in the Dalan, but his grandfather Kailash Yadav (P.W.-2), Bimal Yadav (P.W.-10) and Bhushan Yadav (P.W.-5), who were sitting on the Chabutra, became badly injured and Panchayat Sevak, Suresh Yadav died instantly on account of being hit by gunshots. After engaging in indiscriminate firing, the aforesaid accused persons went towards the Devi Sthan Mandir, situated towards the eastern side and while firing they moved towards the northern side of the village for exiting the village.

(3.) The informant, in his fardbeyan has further stated that somehow he followed the accused persons by hiding himself and at the temple, in the light of petromax he saw that people were running helter-skelter including his agnate Shrawan Yadav, who was running towards the house of Sudhir Yadav, situated on the northern side, however Sudarshan Chauhan and Lalit Chauhan fired from the arms in their hand upon Shrawan Yadav and after committing his murder, they ran towards the northern side of the village towards the orchard while firing. The informant has stated that the motive for the occurrence is that a murder case is going on against Krishna Yadav, Yadu Yadav and Dinesh Yadav vis-a-vis the informant and the aforesaid accused persons were insisting and pressurizing them to withdraw the said case but since they had not acceded to their pressure, the present occurrence has taken place. The informant had thereafter, put his signature on the fardbeyan after the same was read over to him, which he had understood and had found the same to be correct, in presence of his co-villager Subhash Yadav (P.W.-3), who had also made his signature on the fardbeyan. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, a formal FIR bearing Sarmera P.S. Case No. 34 of 2006 was registered against Sudarshan Chauhan, Ganesh Chauhan, Lalit Chauhan, Yadu Yadav, Krishna Yadav and Dinesh Kumar @ Police under Sec. 147/148/149/302/324/ 307/34 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation and finding the case to be true, the police had filed charge-sheet on 6/10/2006 against the aforesaid appellants and two others (showing them to be absconders) under Ss. 147/ 148/149/302/324/307/34 of the I.P.C. & Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, whereafter the learned Trial Judge had taken cognizance of the offences under the same Sec. , vide order dt. 7/10/2006. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions Trial Case No. 516 of 2010. After taking into consideration the chargesheet and the materials collected during the course of investigation, the learned Trial Judge framed charges under Sec. 302/34 and Sec. 307/34 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, vide order dtd. 2/2/2011 against the appellants of the aforesaid appeals, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.