AMAR KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 825 of 1996 in which the four appellants in the three appeals were tried together.

(2.) By the judgment and order of conviction dated 12.8.2003 a verdict of guilt was returned by the learned trial Judge on the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, commonly framed against the four appellants and while hearing on sentence, the learned trial Judge directed each of the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for his individual conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Amar Kumar Singh (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 471 of 2003) was the only accused who was found guilty of committing the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act also and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years only. The learned trial Judge did not pass any sentence of fine upon any of the appellants. We have heard the batch of three appeals together and we are disposing them of by this common judgment.

(3.) THE facts of the case are very short which are contained in Ext.1, the written report said to have been presented by Ramesh Kumar Singh, P.W.5, the informant of the case, to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, at about 8 P.M. on 19.7.1995 at the very place of occurrence. It was alleged by the informant that he along with his brother had gone to Bairya for purchasing some medicines and both were coming back to their village by their scooter bearing No. BR -1B -5813. One of the co -villagers, namely, Indrajeet Kumar Singh (not examined) also met them at the market place and he expressed his desire to travel with them and, as such, he was also taken as a pillion rider on the scooter. While coming back, the informant and his companions reached near their village and when they were near the High School the four accused persons, i.e., the four appellants, appeared there. Appellant Bimlesh Kumar Singh was armed with iron road whereas appellants Ashok Sigh and Pashupati Singh were having hockey stick and lathi in their respective possessions. Appellant Amar Kumar Singh was possessing a country made pistol. All the four appellants are said to have opened assault and to have assaulted the deceased Dinesh Kumar Singh, the full brother of P.W.5, incessantly. Yet another co -villager of the informant, namely, Nawal Kumar Singh who was going to Bairya attempted to intervene. However, appellant Pashupati Singh ordered his son appellant Amar Kumar Singh to shoot and kill Dinesh Kumar Singh and, accordingly, appellant Amar Kumar Singh fired a shot which hit the deceased Dinesh Kumar Singh who fell down and died instantaneously. The informant stated that he rushed to Gopalpur Police Out Post and informed the Officer -in -charge there, but in spite of the distance being about 2 or 21/2 K.Ms., the police Officer reached the scene of occurrence 1 and 1/2 hours later. It was alleged that the Officer -in -charge of Gopalpur Police Out Post was an accused in complaint case No. 850 (C) of 1994 filed by the informant and he had doubts that the Officer would take proper action, rather there were all possibilities that he would spoil the case of the informant. As such, he did not give any reports, orally or in writing, to the Officer -in - charge of Gopalpur Police Out Post and presented Ext.1 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Patna, when he had arrived at the scene of occurrence. It was further stated by the informant in his written report that the motive for the occurrence was the old enmity between the parties and further that there had been an altercation and exchange of abuses and hot words in the very morning of the day of occurrence and, as such, the occurrence.