TRIVENI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate, appearing for appellants as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.C.Mishra.

(2.) Both the above stated criminal appeals have arisen out of impugned judgment of conviction dated 31.05.1995 and sentence order dated 02.06.1995 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 1993 by which and whereunder the learned trial court convicted the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 190 of 1995 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 136 of 1995 for the offence punishable under Section 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code and, furthermore, all the above stated appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 190 of 1995 were acquitted of the charge framed under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 190 of 1995 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, similarly, appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 136 of 1995 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code and, furthermore, all the above stated appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Since both the above stated appeals have been emerged out from impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order, common judgment is being passed in both the above stated criminal appeals.

(3.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that P.W.5, namely, Jamuna Singh, gave his fard-e-beyan to P.W. 9 on 15.9.1992 at 2.30 P.M. at village Bariarpur, to this effect, that on the same day at about 12:00 noon, while he along with his grandson Guddu @ Birendra Singh (deceased) was going to purchase medicines and reached in front of house of Raghunath Sah, he noticed that Sanjay Sharma, Kamal Sharma, Triveni Singh and Lalu Singh were standing towards south side of road. He, further, claimed that when he as well as his grandson reached near the aforesaid persons, Triveni Singh and Lalu Singh ordered the others to kill Guddu and, thereafter, Sanjay Sharma opened fire of his country-made pistol, which hit on the chest of Guddu. Having sustained firearm injury, Guddu ran from there raising alarm but fell down on north side of the Chat of the road and started wriggling in pain. He, further, claimed that Kamal Sharma went running near Guddu and opened fire of his country-made pistol on the back head of Guddu, as a result whereof, Guddu died then and there. The aforesaid persons after committing the murder of Guddu fled away from there. P.W. 9, further, claimed that the aforesaid occurrence was witnessed by Shiv Kumar Singh (P.W.4), Raghunath Rai (P.W.6), Birju Singh (not examined) as well as several other persons. P.W. 5, further, claimed that four months ago Kailash Sharma, the father of appellant Sanjay Sharma, was killed and he as well as his son, namely, Umesh and his grandson, namely, Vijay Singh, were made accused in the aforesaid case and the appellants committed the murder of his grandson Guddu @ Birendra Singh due to above stated enmity. The fard-e-beyan of P.W. 5 has been marked as Ext. 6.