ASHARFI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NINE accused persons were jointly charged for offences under Sections 147, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code by the 3rd Addi - tional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 286. of 1990. Sidhi Singh was separately charged under Sec - tion 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Similarly ac - cused Daroga Singh was also charged with Sidhi Singh under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Both accused Sidhi Singh and Daroga Singh were further charged along with third accused Mithilesh Singh under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Mithilesh Singh was sepa - rately charged under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Four out of the nine accused namely Asharfi Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Ram Pukar Singh and Bhagwat Singh were jointly charged under Section 380 I.P.C. The nine accused persons namely Asharfi Singh, Shalik Singh @ Shaligram Singh, Ram Pukar Singh, Bhagat Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Kusheshwar Singh, Sidhi Singh, Mithilesh Singh and Daroga Singh were found guilty of commit - ting various offences by the learned Judge by the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.10.1993. Accused Sidhi Singh, Mithlesh Singh and Daroga Singh were found guilty and convicted under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code while the remaining six ac - cused persons namely Asharfi Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Shalik Singh @ Shaligram Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Kusheshwar Singh and Ram Pukar Singh were found guilty and accordingly convicted under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Sidhi Singh was separately held guilty and con - victed under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act while accused Mithilesh Singh was found guilty under Sec. 148 along with Sidhi Singh and Daroga Singh besides being found guilty and convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The remaining six accused persons were found guilty under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Those who were found guilty under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code i.e, Sidhi Singh, Mithilesh Singh and Daroga Singh directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life while the remaining six i.e. Asharfi Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Shalik Singh @ Shaligram Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Kusheshwar Singh and Ram Pukar Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for their individual conviction under Sec. 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Sidhi Singh was directed to undergo another period of rigorous imprisonment for seven years for his conviction under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and for one year under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code Accused Mithilesh Singh was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and equal term and nature of punishment and Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Mithilesh Singh and Daroga Singh were directed to un - dergo imprisonment for one year for their conviction under Sec. 148. of the Indian Penal Code. As regards the conviction of the six accused namely Asharfi Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Shalik Singh @ Shaligram Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Kusheshwar Singh and Ram Pukar Singh they had to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for their individual conviction under Sec. 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The four accused persons namely Asharfi Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Ram Pukar Singh and Bhagwat Singh who had been charged together under Sec. 380 of the Indian Penal Code were acquitted of the said charge. The nine accused are the appel - lants in the, three appeals presently being disposed of by this common judgment Asharfi Singh, Shalik Singh @ Shaligram Singh, Ram Pukur Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Awadhesh Singh and Kusheshwar Singh together preferred Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 1993. while Sidhi Singh has sepatately preferred Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 1993. Mithilesh Singh and Daroga Singh have jointly filed the third appeal bearing. Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 1993 to assail the above judgment and order of conviction as against each of them. This may not be out of place to mention here that during the pendency of the appeal appellant Bhagwat Singh one of the six appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 539 of 1993 died and accordingly an affidivit was filed in the said appeal annexing therewith the death certificate of the said appellant indicating the death having taken place on 15.4.2002. By order dated 18.12.2006 his appeal was abeted on account of his death thus leaving this judgment only as against eight convicted accused and appellants.

(3.) THE prosecution narration emerged from exhibit 3, Fardbeyan of Sheoshankar Singh, P.W.1 recorded on 23.4.1989 at 11.30 P.M. at his Darwaja. in which he stated that he was watching a film show being telecast on Television at his Darwaja where some co -villagers of P.W.1 had also assembled for the purpose. Out of the villagers the informant named the nine accused persons and further stated that at about 8.30 P.M. the electric line and the show went off. All on a sudden, the nine accused persons, who were initially the appellants, claimbed over the Varandah of his Darwaja and some of them entered inside the house through the open door. It is stated that Shiv Narayan Singh the younger brother of P.W.1 who was sitting there in the Varandah, was shot and killed by accused Sidhi Singh with a country made pistol. Appellant Mithilesh Singh dealt a sowrd blow on Suradeo Prasad Singh (P.W.8) the youngest brother of P.W.1 as a result of which one of his fingers was amputated. In the meantime the other accused persons who had entered inside the house looted away ornaments, cash etc. of the value of Rs. 20,000/ - by breaking open boxes and ran away from the rooms.