SHIVA SHANKAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as they both arise out of the same judgment dated 5-2-1996 and order dated 12-2-1996 convicting and sentencing Sri Niwas Pandey and Dinesh Pandey who are appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 120 of 1996, and Shiva Shankar Pandey, Ram Pravesh Pandey, Vijoy Shankar Pandey, Mithilesh Pandey alias Lalli, Ram Keshwar Pandey and Awadhesh Pandey, who are appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 109 of 1996. Appellant Dinesh Pandey has been convicted under Sections 302 and S. 341 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC. The remaining seven appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 341, IPC and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. No separate sentence has been passed under Sections 341, I.P.C and 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 18-10-93 at about 5.45 a.m. Manglanand Pandey, father of informant Ram Bachan Pandey (P.W. 10) and Rangnath Pandey (P.W. 2), uncle of informant were constructing a 'Machan' (a platform abridging some trees with bamboos for holding vegetable creepers) in their Sahan (open land) situate adjacent west to their 'dalan'. The dalan and cow-shed of appellant Ram Pravesh Pandey are adjacent to that land where the 'Machan' was being erected. All the eight appellants at that time came there and started abusing the father and uncle of informant. The informant who at that time was in his Goshala (cow-shed) and Ram Lakhan Pandey, grandfather of informant, who was in his dalan, went to the place and they asked the appellants not to quarrel. All the appellants ran to assault them. The informant along with his father, uncle and grandfather came running to his house and they closed the doors of the house. The appellants came to the 'darwaja' of the house of the informant and continued abusing them and they were also saying that they would not leave any one of them alive. The informant and his companions out of fear went to the roof of the house and started making 'hulla'. All the appellants except appellants Mithilesh Pandey and Ram Keshwar Pandey who remained in a lane and continued abusing the informant's party, went on the roof of their house and from there they started pelting brickbats on the informant's party. Informant and his companions again asked the appellants not to do so. In the meantime, appellant Sri Niwas Pandey brought a licensee rifle from his house and gave it to Dinesh Pendey who fired at the father of informant causing injury on the upper portion of his left arm. The father of informant after receiving injury came down running with the informant and others. Thereafter the informant (PW 10) along with Rangnath Pandey (PW 2), Satyendra Narayan Pandey (PW 9) and Rangnath Tiwary (not examined) proceeded for the treatment of his father after putting him on a cot. At about 7.15 when the informant and his companions reached near the dalan of Ram Narayan Pandey (PW. 7), appellants Ram Pravesh Pandey, Vijoy Shankar Pandey, Ram Keshwar Pandey and Awadhesh Pandey all armed with lathis, appellants Mithilesh Pandey and Sri Niwas Pandey armed with garasa, appellant Shiva Shankar Pandey armed with a country made rifle and appellant Dinesh Pandey armed with a licensee rifle reached there running and they all gave out for killing the informant's party. The cot on which the father of informant was being carried was kept near the dalan by the party of informant and informant ran inside a room of the 'dalan' of Ram Narayan Pandey and by hiding near a window he started watching the appellants through the window. His uncle Rangnath Pandey (PW 2) fled towards the village. Rang Nath Tiwary and Satyendra Pandey (PW 9) remained there. Thereafter appellant Dinesh Pandey firedfrom his rifle on the father of informant who was lying unconscious on the cot. Appellants Ram Pravesh Pandey and Sri Niwas Pandey asked appellant Dinesh Pandey to fire again saying that father of informant was still alive and then appellant Dinesh Pandey fired 2-3 more shots causing the death of father of informant at the spot. Thereafter all the appellants fled away towards their house. S. I. Narendra Mohan Sinha (PW. 11) who at that time was posted as Officer Incharge of Sajhauli Police Station on hearing rumours about the commission of murder reached the place on 18-10-93 at about 9.30 a.m. and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of informant. About the motive, the informant in the fardbeyan stated that a murder case was pending between informant's party and the appellants and for that reason the appellants after hatching a plan committed the murder of his father. Shri Narendra Mohan Sinha (PW 11) took up the investigation of the case, inspected the two places of occurrence, seized blood stained earth and brickbats from the 'osara' of the house of the informant and prepared a seizure list (Ext. 4) and also seized blood stained earth, fired cartridge, remains of cartridges, blood stained cot and bed from the second place of occurrence and also prepared seizure lists (Exts. 4/a and 4/b). He also prepared inquest report (Ext. 5) of the dead body of the father of informant and sent it for post mortem examination, recorded the statements of witnesses, sent the blood stained earth to Forensic Science Laboratory and thereafter he, on his transfer, made over the charge of investigation of this case to SI Kanhaiya Prasad Singh (PW 12), who submitted chargesheet under Sections 147/148/149/341/302, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against the appellants.

(3.) Cognizance of the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session where charges under Sections 341 and 302/149, IPC were framed against all the eight appellants. Besides this, additional charge under Section 302, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against appellant Dinesh Pandey and charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act against appellant Shiva Shankar Pandey were also framed. The appellants denied the charges. The case of the appellants as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is that the deceased himself was a veteran criminal and he was murdered by some unknown persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case owing to their enmity with the informant. After trial the appellants were found guilty and they have been convicted and sentenced as indicated above.