RAJAN RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The trial of the appellant was split up from the other accused -persons as he was absconding. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has further been convicted for the offence under Sections 3 8s 5 of Explosive Substances Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years under each count. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, as has been mentioned in the fardbeyan, is that one Jogendra Singh gave his fardbeyan before the Sub -Inspector of Police of Parsa Police Station on 10 -6 -1983 at about 8.25 p.m. that at about 7.45 p.m. he came from Bheldi at Parsa Bazar Chowk. His elder brother namely Bhola Singh was sitting in front of sahan of his Baithka facing west on chauki and was talking with one Shobha Rai. He reached at his Baithka to take his motor cycle to go to his house but there was some mechanical defect in the motor cycle as he was waiting for bus to go to his house. At about 8.10 p.m., he heard sound of bomb explosion causing injury to his brother who was sitting on the chauki. When he looked towards the direction from which the bomb had been thrown, he saw Rajan Rai (appellant), Kameshwar Rai, Tileshwar Rai, Sipahi Rai, Bankim Rai and Dasrath Rai having bags in their hands. All the six accused -persons threw bomb on his brother as a result of which he died on the chauki. He caught the waist of the appellant but he was rescued by accused Kameshwar Rai by giving blow on his leg from behind. Appellant Rajan Rai and accused Kameshwar Rai fled away towards west. Accused Bankim Rai & Dasrath Rai ran away towards north and accused Sipahi Rai and Tilesher Rai ran away towards south on a motor cycle, Sobha Rai, Ram Gobind Sao and Ram Ayodhya Rai were also there who had sustained splinter injuries on their person. He also sustained splinter injury on his hand and on right leg. The neighbours present at the time of occurrence might have identified the accused -persons. The motive of occurrence was previous enmity with Rajan Rai and Tileshwar Rai who had attempted to kill the deceased 3 to 4 years ago by throwing bomb but he had escaped, A year before the alleged occurrence an attempt was also made to kill the informant's brother by appellant Rajan Rai and Tileshwar Rai in Sunderpur orchard by throwing bomb for which a case was lodged in Daryapur Police Station. Deceased Bhola Singh had succeeded in election of Pramukh against Hazari Rai with whom he had differences. Accused persons are the men of Hazari Rai and as such they have committed the crime.

(3.) Fardbeyan was recorded at the place of occurrence within 15 minutes of the occurrence, Ext. 3. Formal First Information Report was registered at 9.30 p.m. Ext. 1'. The investigation of the case was taken up. The Investigating Officer inspected the dead body and prepared inquest report, Ext. 9. He inspected the place of occurrence and found copious blood spread beneath the Chauki. He seized blood -stained earth and the splinter and prepared seizure list, Ext. 10. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination to Sadar Hospital, Chapra and thereafter, recorded the statement of witnesses. At 10.30 p.m. the Superintendent of Police came and supervised the case. He also sent the injury report of Jogendra Singh prepared by him to Parsa Hospital, Ext. 12 He also obtained sanction for prosecution of the accused -persons for offence under Sections 3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act. After completion of investigation submitted charge -sheet against the accused -persons. On receipt of charge -sheet, case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. Accused Tileshwar Rai was killed in encounter with the police during pendency of the case. The remaining accused -persons, namely, Bankim Rai, Dasrath Rai, Sipahi Rai and Kameshwar Rai were separately tried in S.T. No. 245/83 as the appellant was absconding. Those accused -persons were convicted by the trial Court but .subsequently in appeal they were acquitted. The appellant has separately been tried and has been convicted and sentenced as indicated above.