KAMTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals each filed by one appellant arise out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 08.03.2013 and 12.03.2013 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in S.T. No. 74 of 2005 (arising out of Udwantnagar P.S. Case No. 194 of 2001), whereby the appellants have been held guilty under section 302/34 Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life besides imposition of fine with default clause.

(2.) The factual profile of the case, as disclosed in the Fardbayan lodged by informant Bimal Kumar Singh (P.W.7) on which his signature has been marked as Ext.2, in brief, is that on the morning of 13.10.2001, at about 6.30 A.M., his brother Vijay Kumar Singh (deceased) left the village home to participate in a seminar to be held in Patna along with Umakant Singh (P.W.4) and two other persons. The informant later also decided to go to Ara and he, too, left the house. All of them sat on the jeep which was heading towards Ara. The deceased, along with his three companions, who earlier left the house, sat on the rooftop of the jeep/vehicle whereas the informant sat inside the jeep. As soon as the jeep reached near Bibiganj bridge at about 8.00 A.M., three accused persons riding on a motorcycle overtook the jeep. The informant identified the appellant Rakesh Singh driving the said motorcycle and two others accused persons namely Ram Krishna Singh and Bir Bahadur Singh (brother-in-law of Ram Krishna Singh) were the pillion riders. The motorcycle quickly intercepted the jeep. All the three accused persons caught the victim who was sitting on the rooftop of the jeep and co-accused Ram Krishana Singh assaulted him on his temple with a country made pistol. The co-accused Bir Bahadur Singh also opened fire at the deceased with his pistol. Quickly thereafter, all the accused persons escaped from the scene on the motorcycle. The informant, with the help of others, carried the injured to the Sadar Hospital Ara where, in course of treatment, the injured died. The informant has imputed the land dispute as the motive for commission of crime. The appellant Rakesh Singh was fighting a litigation pending in court. The lodging of the case ensued the investigation wherein the dead body was dispatched for holding the autopsy and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Upon conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the present appellants. The police, it appears, on the basis of the investigation, found that Bir Bahadur Singh is actually the appellant Kamta Singh, being full brother of Bir Bahadur Singh. In the FIR, Bir Bahadur Singh has been described as the son of Kamta Singh. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of sessions. On commitment, the case came on the file of the learned trial court where the charges were framed and read over/explained to the accused appellants who pleaded their innocence.

(3.) In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses. P.W. 1 Vinod Singh, P.W. 2 Bhola Singh @ Shree Bhagwan Singh, P.W. 4 Umakant Singh, P.W. 5 Shivjee Singh, and P.W. 7 Vimal Kumar Singh (informant) were projected as the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 3 is the father of the deceased who has given the hearsay account. He rushed directly to the hospital on receiving the news of assault on his son P.W. 5 was declared hostile by the Prosecution. P.W. 8 Ramashankar Singh and P.W. 9 Mohan Mahto were also not relied upon by the prosecution as they were also declared hostile. P.W.10 Dr. Uday Kumar Singh is the autopsy surgeon who held the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and proved the post mortem report (Ext.3). The I.O. of the case could not be examined. On close appraisal of the evidence, the learned trial court held that the charges were proved against the appellants and they were convicted and sentenced in the manner narrated above. These two appeals are directed against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence.