GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have been convicted under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the charge of committing the murder of Sitaram Singh and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Further, they have been convicted and sentenced under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code for one year rigorous imprisonment. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly put, the prosecution case, as made out in the fardbeyan (Exhibit 2) and elucidated in evidence, is as under : The informant (Manika Devi) is the wife of appellant (Chandradeo Singh). They were married 6/7 years ago. Her brother (Sitaram Singh), the deceased in exchange was married to Soma Devi (Uma Devi), PW 2. The deceased came to his matrimonial home in the evening of 25.5.1987 and was staying there. His wife (PW 2) was at her paternal home. On the fateful morning, around 6 a.m., the deceased was sitting on a cot on the northern verandah and his wife as well as the informant were cooking food on the same verandah. The appellant (Chandradeo Singh) was separating tiles, whereupon co-accused (Saudagar Singh), maternal grand father-in-law of the informant, his sons (Suraj Singh and Samu Singh) (who have been acquitted on benefit of doubt), Guiab Singh (the appellant), her unclein-law and his sons (appellants Bechan Singh and Mahabir Singh) arrived and with the assistance of appellant (Chandradeo Singh), her husband, they overpowered the deceased and forcely took him in a room and bolted from inside. The deceased was loudly requesting to spare and was asking as to why they were assaulting him, whereupon the informant and her sister-in-law (Soma Devi) (PW 2) went near the door and pushed in vain to open it. Sura] Singh, the co-accused opened the door and threatened them to keep a mum, else they would be burnt to death. After about an hour, the accused-persons opened the door, brought the deceased in an unconscious state and laid him on the cot and fled away. Froth was coming out from the mouth and nose of Sitaram Singh later on, it was observed that there was throttling mark on the neck of Sitaram Singh. The informant sent Gopal Razak (PW 3) to fetch a doctor from Pathalgarha, which is at a distance of about 1 km. The doctor came, washed the mouth and nose of the deceased and while he was administering medicine, Sitaram Singh died. Thereafter, Bechan Singh, the co-accused, on the request of the informant, conveyed her father (Laljee Singh), PW 6, about the death of Sitaram Singh. Thereafter, her father arrived. The villagers wanted to cremate the dead body, but her father did not allow them. The body of the deceased was carried on a small cart to the police station by her father. Ultimately, she gave her fardbeyan (which is, in fact, First Information Report) before the police officer, Chatra P.S. (situate at a distance of 40 kms. West to the P.O. Village) on 28.5.1987 at 9 a.m. She has alleged that Dhanu Singh, her father-in-law, had threatened that he would cut her brother into pieces. On the basis of the fardbeyan (exhibit 2), the present case came to be instituted, a formal First Information Report (Exhibit 3) was drawn up, investigation commenced, and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid in Court against the accused-persons.

(3.) The main defence is of innocence, bare denial of involvement of the accused/appellants in the occurrence and of false implication.