NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant No. 1 Narendra Singh was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code years' (hereinafter referred to as Code) and he was further sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The sentences in his case were ordered to run concurrently. The remaining three appellants Dinanath Singh, Kumar Singh and Haridwar Singh were each sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under section 307 read with section 34 of the Code. These three appellants are said to be brothers.

(2.) The occurrence of marpit took place on 26th May 1969 at about 11 a.m. in village Bagchhara P.S. Chand, district Shahabad. A report about the occurrence was made at Chand P.S. on the same day at 1 p. m. on the basis of which a Sanha was recorded and subsequently a first information report was also registered.

(3.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 26.5.1969 at about 11 a.m. the informant Behari Singh (P.W. 4) and his brother Bachai Singh (P. W. 2) were digging foundation for the purpose of raising a wall by the side of the house of the appellants. Appellant no. 2 Dinanath Singh made a protest. There was a quarrel. Appellant no. 2 then went sway giving threat and he returned along with other appellant variously armed with weapons, namely, gun and bhalas. It is said that appellants no. 1 Narendra Singh fired his gun at (P. W. 3) Satyanarain Singh. However, P.W. 3 saved himself. The informant (P.W. 4) at that time was working in a brick kiln at a distance of about 120 yards and he was sending bricks from that place. On hearing hulla he rushed towards the place where the foundation was being dug. The prosecution alleges that appellant no. 3 Kumar Singh gave a bhala blow hitting Bihari Singh on his finger. Bihari Singh then started running away. He was chased by the appellants. When he reached near a Jamun tree, which was on the south of the village, appellant no. 1 Narendra Singh fired his gun at him hitting him on the thigh. Having received that injury, he fell down. The defence o f the appellants was that no occurrence as alleged by the prosecution, took place and that they have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity.