(1.) The sole appellant was convicted and sentenced by the common judgment. Judgment of conviction was passed on 8th May, 2008 and he was convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and by order dated 12-05-2008, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The judgment of conviction and sentence was passed by Sri Vijay Kant Mishra, earned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-Vth, Sheikhpura (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Judge') in Sessions Case No. 210 of 2007/Trial No. 78 of 2008 (arising out of Shekhopur Sarai P.S. Case No. 19 of 2006).
(2.) On perusal, it appears that after conviction, there was none to do pairvi on behalf of the appellant and he was in custody, thereafter, a letter under the signature of the appellant was received, which was certified and forwarded by the Jail Superintendent, Bhagalpur on 01-04-2009. Accordingly, the matter was listed before a Division Bench and on 19-05-2009, Smt. Rina Sinha, learned Advocate, who was present in Court, was appointed as Amicus Curiae and it was directed for listing this appeal for hearing on limitation matter. Thereafter, by order dated 17-07-2009, the delay in preferring the appeal was condoned. By order dated 25-07-2009, the appeal was admitted and lower court record was called for. Despite the fact that the present appeal, which was sent from jail, was admitted, subsequently in the year 2013, one another appeal, vide Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 65 of 2013, was filed on behalf of same appellant against same impugned judgment from the office of one Sri Dhirendra Nath Jha, learned counsel alongwith an interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No. 181 of 2013 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning delay in filing appeal. The Registry in this appeal failed to point out that earlier an appeal i.e. Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 445/2009, filed against the same judgment of conviction and sentence, was already admitted as 'Jail Appeal'. Subsequently, the appeal i.e. Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 65 of 2013 was listed on 05-02-2013 and a coordinate Bench of this Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, which was of 4 years & 9 months (though in limitation petition, delay of 4 years 8 months has been written) and directed for summoning lower court record. Only thereafter, the fact has come to fore that appeal filed on behalf of the appellant from jail has already been admitted. Accordingly, both the appeals have been listed under the heading "For Hearing", however; Sri Dhirendra Nath Jha, learned counsel, who had filed Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 65 of 2013, did not appear.
(3.) The case has been initiated on the basis of fardbeyan of one Umesh Singh (P.W.2), who was Chowkidar of village Nimi, which was recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police-cum-officer incharge Rajdeo Prasad, Shekhopur Sarai Police Station (Sheikhpura). The said fardbeyan was recorded on 06-07-2006 at 14.30 hrs. (2:30 PM) at Dabaria khanda, Nimi. In the fardbeyan, the informant disclosed that he was chowkidar of the village Nimi, which is within the Shekhopur Sarai Police Station and he was allotted Beet No. - 4/5. He, in his fardbeyan, stated that on the same date i.e. on 06-07-2006 at about 12.30 PM, he got an information that in the village, one of the villagers namely Hare Ram Singh had murdered his father Upendra Singh about 2 km away from the north-east side of the village near 'Nigar Khanda' in the maize field by giving [1] (sickle) blow on stomach, chest and head. After getting information, with a view to get it verified, he went to eastern bathan near dabaria khanda, where there was forest of seisum and toddy trees. On his arrival, he saw the dead body of Upendra, which was on a cot and on his person/body, there were injuries. He further stated that at that very time, villagers namely; 1. Sachita Singh, 2. Madan Singh, 3. Bum Singh, 4. Ram Pravesh Singh, 5. Kundan Singh, 6. Bipin Singh, 7. Ramji Singh, 8. Shiv Shankar Singh, 9. Mintu Singh, 10. Shiv Kumar Singh, all residents of village Nimi, Police Station Shekhopur Sarai, District - Sheikhpura and about 40 unknown persons were collecting woods, kerosene oil etc. The informant in his fardbeyan further stated that he tried to prevent them and asked not to burn the dead body, since he had already given information to officer incharge of the police station and he was coming, however; those persons did not accede to the request of the informant and forcibly putting the dead body on woods after sprinkling kerosene oil set it on fire. Even, those accused persons had threatened the informant. Thereafter, the informant started waiting for the arrival of the police, however; the accused persons continued to burn the dead body. The dead body had already been burnt and about 2:15 PM, police on vehicle arrived and after noticing the police party, all the accused persons scattered and fled away. The reason for the occurrence was assigned by the informant that in the preceding night, in between the deceased Upendra Singh and his son appellant Hare Ram Singh, there was some dispute for work as well as partition of the land. Due to the said reason, the deceased was done to death by Hare Ram Singh (appellant) by inflicting blow of Hasua (sickle). The informant claimed that aforesaid accused persons with common object, with a view to get escape from the charges, had disappeared the evidence by way of burning the deceased to ashes. The fardbeyan was read over to him and after finding it correct, he put his signature on the fardbeyan.