BANGALLSINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three appellants along with three others were put on trial on a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having murdered Ramchandra Singh (deceased) in furtherence of common intention of all on the night of 28.7.89 in village Hariyabhir, P.S. Korha in the district of Katihar. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 31st May 1991 acquitted the other three but convicted the three appellants and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal.

(2.) On hearing a rumour that a person has been beheaded and killed in village Hariyabhir, S.D. entry No. 680, dated 29.7.89 was recorded and Sub-Inspector Sachidanand Choudhary (P.W. 12) left Korha police station at 6. a.m. along with the officer-in-charge of the police station, namely Sudhir Kumar Singh. The Officer-in-charge recorded the fardbayan (Ext. 5) of Anil Kumar Singh (P.W. 9), son of the deceased at the P.O. village at 7 a.m. wherein he stated that on the previous night at about 8-8.30 p.m. while he was sitting in front of his house after taking meals, he heard the shouts of his father coming from the north-east. He ran alone in that direction and when he reached near the Banana field of Jagdish Prasad Sinha, he saw in the flash light of torch that 10-12 persons were assaulting his father and his father was making efforts to free himself. Among them he identified Bangali Singh A-1, Kapildeo Singh A-2 and Karn Singh A-3. After assaulting his father they threw him on the ground and A-3 severed his neck by a sword like weapon. The informant who was taken aback ran to his house raising alarm and narrated the occurrence to his mother. On his hulla the villagers went to the Banana field and found the headless body of his father lying there. Despite best efforts the head could not be traced out. The motive for the occurrence mentioned in the fardbeyan is land dispute between the deceased and the three appellants. The deceased had executed some registered sale deed in favour of the appellants which he was getting cancelled on account of their not paying the consideration money. The three other persons (since acquitted) were also named in the fardbeyan as suspects.

(3.) The Officer-in-charge in presence of P.W. 12 held the inquest on the body of the deceased vide inquest report (Ext. 6) and after preparing the dead body chalan sent it to Purnea for post-mortem examination. The Officer-in-charge then handed over charge of investigation to P.W. 12 and on return to the police station drew the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 7), P.W. 12 inspected the P.O., recorded the statements of the witnesses, received the post-mortem report of the deceased and thereafter handed over the investigation to the Officer-in-charge and in course of time charge-sheet under Secs. 302/34, I.P.C. was filed against all the six accused, persons including the three appellants. In course of trial as many as 12 witnesses were produced for the prosecution including the informant (P.W. 9) who happened to be the solitary eye-witness of the occurrence. The defence case was of false implication on account of enmity with the appellants who were all full brothers. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the defence plea and after holding the prosecution case as proved, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner already indicated above.