DHOBI YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Dhobi Yadav (father) has been convicted under Section 304 Part ill of the Indian Penal Code and has been given four years rigorous imprisonment and appellant Suresh Yadav (son) had been convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and has been given four years and four months rigorous imprisonment respectively by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, against which this appeal has been preferred by them.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that on 16-10-77 at about 7 a.m. when the informant Ganga Singh (the deceased) at Village Mahmadpur, Police Station Surajgarh District Munger, was tieing his she-buffalo at his Bathan, the two accused went to his Bathan. Accused Dhobi Yadav gave a few Hurrah blow on the chest and shoulder of the victim. (Ganga Singh) who fell down. Rupees 110.15 paise which were in the waist of the victim was taken away by Suresh Yadav. One bucket with milk was also taken away by them. Both then ran away. This occurrence is said to have been seen by Prasadi Lal and Mithoo Mochi (P.Ws. 2 and 5 respectively). The victim was then taken to Surajgarh State dispensary where his Fardbeyen was recorded on 17-10-78 at 4.30 p.m. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramayan singh (C.W.1.). for the offence under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. But later on the victim was sent to Munger - Hospital where he died on 18- 10-1978 and so the case was converted into one under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The motive for the offence is said to be that there was a quarrel between the appellants Suresh Yadav, Dhobi Yadav and the brother of the victim.

(3.) It is said before the victim died on Munger Hospital, his dying declaration (Ext. 4) was recorded by the Block Development Officer (BDO) (not examined). The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. H.N. Gupta (not examined) whose report has been brought on the record as Ext. 2. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of Sessions.