RANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the appellants in aforesaid five appeals were tried together and by common judgment of the trial court they were convicted and sentenced and as such, all the five appeals were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) All the appellants by judgment dated 21.10.2013 were convicted for the offence under Section 147/148/ 302/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [ hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."] and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 [ hereinafter referred to as "Arms Act"]. By order dated 31.10.2013 under Section 302 / 149 of the I.P.C. all the aforesaid appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. In default in payment of fine, they were directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Under Section 148 /147 of the I.P.C. they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year however, under Section 27 of the Arms Act all the aforesaid appellants were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The judgment of conviction and sentence was passed by Sri Deo Nandan Prasad Singh, learned Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st Barh, Patna [ hereinafter referred to as "trial judge"] in Sessions Trial No. 1186 of 2004 / Sessions Trial No. 905 of 2005 ( arising out of Pandarak P.S. Case No. 32 of 2003).

(3.) Short fact of the case is that on 03.04.2003 at 20.00 Hours ( 8.00 P.M.) the Officer-in-charge of Pandarak Police Station recorded fardbyan of Umashankar Singh ( P.W. 6) in the village: Bihari Bigha. In the fardbyan the informant stated that he was Mukhiya of Bihari Bigha Panchayat. He stated that on the same day at about 6.00 in the evening he along with his brother- Ramashankar Singh (deceased) and his villagers- Surendra Singh @ Ledha ( P.W. 5), brother-in-law of deceased -Ramashankar Singh namely, Dhirendra Singh ( P.W. 3) and Sunil Singh ( P.W. 4) were moving towards telephone booth in the Bihari Bigha and while they reached at 6.10 P.M. near the house of one Shatrughan Sao ( not examined) then he saw that (1) Ajay Singh [appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 53 of 2014], (2) Manoj Singh (absconder), (3) Vijay Singh [appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1083 of 2013] and (4) Mirtunjay Singh (died during the trial) carrying pistol in their hands, (5) Ranjeet Singh (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1052 of 2013] carrying rifle in his hand, (6) Nawal Singh (acquitted), (7) Satendra Singh (acquitted), (8) Rajesh Singh ( absconder), (9) Upendra Singh [appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1101 of 2013, (10) Gopal Singh all carrying pistols in their hands came near the beetle shop of Vijay Yadav. All of them surrounded the informant and his companion and started abusing and stated as to why the informant's side were not leaving/ relinquishing quota as well as contract work whereupon, Ramashankar Singh (deceased) replied that he would not leave the same. Thereafter, the aforesaid accused persons started firing on Ramashankar Singh which hit Ramashankar Singh and he fell down. After Ramashankar Singh fell down the accused persons also fired on the informant and others however, anyhow, they succeeded in fleeing away towards Southern Area and while fleeing away turning back he [informant] saw that accused after killing Ramashankar Singh were fleeing away towards Northern side. The informant with others then came to the place of occurrence and saw that his brother- Ramashankar Singh had received shot of firing and had died. After hearing sound of firing number of villagers also saw the accused persons while they were fleeing away. The informant claimed that along with the aforesaid named F.I.R. accused there were 3-4 other unknown accused persons who were variously armed and they were not known to the informant. The informant claimed that aforesaid ten accused persons with other 3-4 unknown accused persons with common intention had killed his brother by giving fire arm injuries. The reason for the murder of his brother was explained by the informant that accused persons were forcing his deceased brother to give up quota and also they were demanding contract work from the informant. The said fardbyan was read over to him and after finding it correct he put his signature on the bottom of the fardbyan. On the basis of the said fardbyan on same day i.e. on 03/04/2003 at 9.45 P.M. a formal F.I.R. vide Pandarak P.S. Case No. 32 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Section 147/ 148/ 149/302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act against:-