BHARAT PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Sessions Trial No. 104/117 of 1987, these four appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to be referred to hereinafter as 'the Code'. Consequently, this appeal.

(2.) According to the prosecution, at village Alipur within Goroul police station in the district of Vaishali, the informant Lallan Prasad Singh and his family owned a small pond. In the year 1986 the said pond had been settled by them with one Sukhnandan Sahani of village Rasulpur Fateh for rearing fish. However, the informant and other members of his family used to keep a watch thereon. At about noon on 10-5-86 these appellants who are residents of the same village, went to that pond and started catching fish therein. The nephew of the informant named Vidyanand Singh noticed the appellants catching fish in the said pond. Therefore, he went there and protested. That led to some altercation and scuffle between Vidyanand Singh on the one hand and the appellants on the other. The appellants threw Vidyanand Singh on ground. Appellant No. 3 Shatrughan Paswan caught hold of his both hands while appellant No. 4 Dhanik Lal Singh caught him by his both legs. Thereafter appellant No. 1 Bharat Paswan and appellant No. 2 Prabhu Paswan stabbed the said Vidyanand Singh on his neck by means of dagger. When the informant and other witnesses who were present nearby rushed to the situs of the occurrence, the appellants fled away. Injured Vidyanand Singh was brought to the village and kept on a cot. However, before he could be taken to hospital for treatment, he succumbed to the stab injuries there. Consequently, the informant went to Goraul police station accompanied by two of his co-villagers and lodged a first information report at 3 p.m. on the same day. According to the first information report (Ext. 2) the police station was situated 25 kilometers away from the place of the occurrence.

(3.) On such facts, all the appellants were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code. However, they denied the charges and pleaded false implication. To prove the charge the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The prosecution failed to examine the doctor who had held the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased as he was dead. Therefore, the post-mortem report was admitted into evidence as Ext. 4 on being proved by P.W. 6, a Pleader's Clerk. On consideration of such evidence, learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vaishali at Hajipur has come to a conclusion that the murder of the deceased was committed by the appellants in furtherance of their common intention to kill him. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the conclusion of the trial court on the ground that two of the witnesses are related inter se as father and son and the remaining two are their debtors. No independent witness has come to support the prosecution story. He has further stated that according to the statement of the Investigating Officer. there was a report by appellant No. I regarding counter version of the occurrence but that was not taken into consideration by the trial court. It is further submitted that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have made contradictory statements giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that in all probability they had not witnessed the occurrence of assault on the deceased.