HANSRAJ GOND S/O RAMLAL GOND RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIKATIA, MACHHARGAWAN, POLICE STATION BAGAHA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hansraj Gond (A-1), Ganesh Gond (A-2), Nand Lal Sah @ Nandlal Gond (A-3), Ram Prasad Gond (A-4) and Feku Gond (A-5) along with others were put on trial for having committed murder of the brother of the informant and also for having attempted to cause murder of the informant. They have been held guilty by the learned Sessions Judge-II, Bagaha vide judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2012 passed in S.T. No. 170 of 1998. A-1 (Hansraj Gond) was held guilty under Sec. 302 Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with imposition of fine with default clause. A-2 (Ganesh Gond) was held guilty under Sec. 302 Penal Code and similarly sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine having default clause. He was also held guilty under Sec. 307 Penal Code for having attempted to cause death of the informant and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine having default clause. A-3 Nand Lal Sah @ Nandlal Gond, A-4 (Ram Prasad Gond) and A-5 (Feku Gond) were held guilty under Sec. 307 Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with imposition of fine having default clause.

(2.) The prosecution case germinates out of Bagaha P.S. Case No. 224/1997 recorded on the basis of fardbeyan made by Ramakant Yadav (P.W.-10) on 1.10.1997 at about 1 p.m. at the Sadar Hospital which was recorded by P.W.-12 (Raghunath Singh). The prosecution case as set out in the fardbeyan (Ext-5) and projected at the trial, in brief, is that on 01.10.1997 at about 8.40 in the morning, the informant along with his brother Kedar Yadav (deceased) and Ram Raj Bhagat (P.W.-9) set out to Khaira Pokhra where there is railway station. As they covered around 1 km on the village road and reached near the Peepal tree which is also know as Brahm Asthan, it is stated that co-accused Uma Shankar Bhagat (since absconding), Hansraj Gond (A-1), Laxman Gond (facing separate trial)Ganesh Gond (A-2) who were sitting near the Brahm Asthan from before stepped on the road. Coaccused Uma Shankar Yadav exhorted other co-accuseds to finish all of them and he himself caught the deceased by throwing gamcha around his neck and was dragged and made to fall on the flank on the road where after all of them started assaulting the victim. Co-accused Uma Shankar Yadav was armed with knife (chura) and he assaulted the deceased several times. A-1 was armed with small bhala and had also assaulted the victim. Co-accused Laxman Yadav and A-2 assaulted the victim with lohbanda with which they were armed. Seeing the assault on the deceased, the informant tried to escape in the nearby cane field. In the meantime, A-5, A-4 and A-3 who were sitting in the nearby field along with other co-accused captivated the informant and started assaulting him with lathi. In the meantime, Laxman Yadav, A-1 (Handraj Gond), also joined them and assaulted him with lohbanda and other weapons. When he fell down, the accused persons only thereafter stopped assaulting him. The deceased having received the injuries at the hands of the accused persons, died at the place of occurrence. On hulla, the villagers arrived and carried him along with deceased to the Sub-Divisional Hospital where in course of treatment of his injuries, he made the ferdbeyan (Ext.-5) which was recorded by P.W.-1 The motive for the occurrence is assigned as village politics. The Investigating Officer upon registration of the formal F.I.R. took up the investigationally. The dead body was sent for post-mortem. The Doctor performed the autopsy on the cadaver on the same day at 30 p.m. and submitted the report. The statement of the witnesses were recorded and upon conclusion of the investigationally, charge-sheet was led against the present appellants and other accused persons whereon cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. On 23.11.2008, the learned Trial Court framed charges against Uma Shankar Gond, Hansraj Gond (A-1), Laxman Gond, and Ganesh Gond (A-2) and further charges were framed under Sec. 307 Penal Code against the rest of the accuseds/appellants. The appellants abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellants is that they have falsely been implicated in this case. The deceased Kedar Yadav was a veteran criminal and he might have been killed by some other persons but not by the appellants. Be it noted that in course of trial, coaccused Uma Shankar Gond absconded and his trial was separated. Similarly, the trial of co-accused Laxman Yadav was also separated.

(3.) In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution, in all, examined 15 witnesses. P.W.-1 (Ramakant Rai) is an F.I.R.witness who has supported the case as hearsay witness. P.W.-2 (Lallan Yadav ) is again an F.I.R. witness who has not been relied upon and declared hostile. P.W.-3 (Raja Singh) and P.W.-4 Sahdev Yadav have also been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-5 (Asharfi Yadav) and P.W.- 6 (Haribans Yadav) have given the hearsay account of the case. P.W.-7 (Jag Yadav) is the father of the deceased and is also a witness to the recording of the ferdbeyan at the hospital by P.W.-12 (Raghunath Singh). P.W.-8 Bal Sunder Yadav is an F.I.R. named witness who has given hearsay account of the part of the prosecution case. P.W.-9 (Ram Raj Bhagat) and P.W.-10 (Ramakant Yadav, informant) are the eye witnesses who have narrated the ocular version of the prosecution case. P.W.-11 ( Dr. P.K. Praveen) is the doctor who examined the informant (P.W.- 10) of his injuries and submitted the injury report (Ext.4). He had also performed the post-mortem on the cadaver and submitted the report which is placed at Ext.- P.W.-12 (Raghunath Singh, A.S.I.) before whom the ferdbeyan was recorded, is also the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W.-13 Bandhu Yadav) and P.W.-14 (Janardan Yadav) have been tendered by the prosecution. P.W.-15 (Doma Yadav) is a witness who claims to have arrived at the place of occurrence on hulla. He has been cited, as such, in the ferdbeyan. The prosecution, however, declared him hostile. While the incriminating materials were put to the appellants under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C., they simply denied the accusations.