JAGARNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagarnath Singh and Mahesh Singh, the two appellants before us, are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th March, 1987 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea, in Sessions Case No. 126 of 1985 convicting and sentencing both the appellants to undergo RI for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 18-3-1984 in the night Informant Nand Kishore Singh PW-1 along with deceased Harish Chandra Pd. Singh was sleeping in the house of deceased Harish Chandra Pd. Singh situate at Narpatganj Bazar, P.S. Narpatganj, District Purnea. They both were sleeping on a single 'chowki' (wooden cot). At about 11.45 p.m. deceased Harish Chandra Pd. Singh awoke the Informant and said that mosquitoes had entered the mosquito net and he lifted the mosquito net and with his handkerchief started repelling the mosquitoes. The Informant immediately then from the eastern window of the room heard sound of firing and the deceased Harish Chandra Pd. Singh yelled that he had been injured by a bomb and the Informant saw a bleeding injury on the left side of the chest of deceased Harish Chandra Pd. Singh. The Informant then put bandage on the wound of deceased and inquired from him what had happened on which the deceased disclosed that both the appellants through the open window had injured him either by a bomb or by opening fire from a fire arm. The Informant then tried to open the door but found that it was bolted from outside by chain. The Informant anyhow managed to open the door and came out and raised hulla. By that time the miscreants had already fled away and on the hulla raised by the Informant Jeetan Bhagat PW-2, Raghunandan Bhagat PW-4 and others came there to whom also the deceased disclosed the names of appellants as his assailants. Two doctors, namely, Dr. Matin and Dr. Bishnu Kant Jha (both not examined) were called from the hospital but deceased Harish Chandra Pd.Singh died after one hour. The fardbeyan (Ext.-1) of Informant Nand Kishore Singh PW-1 was recorded on 18-3-1984 at 01.00 hours at the place of occurrence by S.I. Neelam Kumar Singh PW-8. In the fardbeyan, the Informant giving the motive of the appellants stated that appellants had long standing enmity with the deceased and his family members on account of domestic and political rivalry and there was litigation between them and on 17-3-1984 at about 3 p.m. appellant Mahesh Singh had met the deceased in Narpatganj Market. According to the case of prosecution, S.I. Neelam Kumar Singh PW-8, the IO, who recorded the fardbeyan of Informant was posted as Officer Incharge at Narpatganj PS at that time and on 18-3-1984 at about 12.05 a.m. he heard sound of firing from Narpatganj Market and he then after recording this fact in the Station Diary Entry (Ext.-4) went to the place of occurrence where he found the deceased lying in an injured condition on a 'chowki' who was not in a position to speak because of injuries sustained by him and in spite of his waiting there for making any statement by the injured after his regaining consciousness, the injured succumbed to injuries without making any statement and he then sent the fardbeyan to Police Station through Chaukidar where formal FIR (Ext.5) was drawn under lection 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the appellants. As it was midnight so inquest report (Ext.7) was not prepared at that time and was prepared on the next day in the morning, dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination and the IO after inspecting the place of occurrence recorded the statements of witnesses, received the post-mortem examination report (Ext.2) and the reply of doctor who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased to some queries made by him and the charge of investigation was handed over to S.I.Ghanshyam Mishra PW-6 on account of his transfer, who submitted charge-sheet in this case. After taking cognizance the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge under Section 302/34, IPC was framed against both the appellants who after trial were found guilty for the charge and have been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for life.

(3.) The case of the defence as it appears from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses was that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity.