DHIRAJA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th of December, 1987 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Case No. 143 of 1981 convicting the appellants for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants upon their conviction as aforesaid were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Shortly stated, the prosecution case, in brief, as per the fardbeyan of the informant Jhagru Mandal (P.W. 3) the basis of recording of the formal first information report (Ext. 2) on 4.2.1980 at 4.00 A.M. by the Officer -in -charge of Sabour Police Station, District -Bhagalpur, is to the effect that on the last night (3.2.1980) at about 8 PM he was going on his land in Mauza -Gohario with meal for his father -in -law. While he reached at a distance little away from his land he saw on flash of his torch that four persons were assaulting his father -in -law, Aghani Mandal who was crying naming Sundar Babu (appellant No. 4) as to why he is assaulting an old man. The informant, Nage Yadav son of Ghuni Yadav holding 'Shaif in his hand, Sundar Yadav son of Ghasan Yadav holding lathi' in his hand, Dhirja Yadav son of Tarun Yadav holding lathi in his hand and Jahindra Yadav son of Rameshwar Yadav holding lathi in his hand, all residents of village Agarpur, were assaulting his father -in -law. On hulla being raised by the informant, Sundar Yadav (appellant No. 4) accosted the informant to come near him who will also be assaulted. The informant while raising hulla fled towards his village. On his hulla nearby villagers namely, Juthan Mandal (P.W. 5), Mahendra Mandal (P.W. 4) and Bhuneshwar Mandal (P.W. 2) came running and saw the accused persons fleeing away. The further case is that the deceased Aghni Mandal told the informant as well as the above three witnesses that Negwa, Dhirja, Jahindra and Sunder Yadav have assaulted him and further told them to take him quickly to the doctor as he apprehended he will not survive anymore. While they were taking the injured to the doctor at Goharia he (Aghani Mandal) died in the way. The informant claimed that the reason for the occurrence is that about three years back the informant as well as villagers had purchased land from one Banshidhar Dhandhania for which the aforesaid accused persons were fighting which had led fight (marpit) between them some time back and a case was also registered. His further claim is that they were negotiating for purchase of rest of the land from Banshidhar Dhandhania over which the accused persons were claiming possession and on account of this enmity the father -in -law of the informant has been killed.

(2.) ON the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant the first information report (Ext. 2) registered against the appellants under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. vide Sabour P.S. Case No. 2/80 and the case was entrusted to A.S.I. Birendra Mohan (P.W. 9) for investigation. The Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, took the dead body into custody and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex -hibit -5) in presence of Bhuwaneshwar Mandal (P.W. 2) and Gulab Mandal (not examined) who put their signatures on the same vide Exhibits 4/2 and 4/3 respectively. The dead body was sent for post mortem. The autopsy over the dead body was done by Dr. Ambuj Kumar Choudhary (P.W. 7) who prepared the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit -1). The investigating officer recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses No. 1 to 6. Further investigation of the case was taken up by A.S.I. Binda Prasad (P.W. 8) who arrested the accused Jahindra Yadav (Appellant No. 3) and after obtaining the instructions of his superior officers, submitted the chargesheet for committing the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The appellants were put on trial for the charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code framed against them on 7th of August, 1984. The charges were explained to each of the appellants by the trial court.

(3.) THE prosecution, in order to bring home the charges as aforesaid examined altogether nine witnesses.