RAM ISHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY judgment and order dated 21.3.1986 the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No.103 of 1979/74 of 1983, convicted appellant no.1 Ram Ishwar Singh under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, appellant no.2 Biran Singh has been convicted under section 323 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.l. for six months.

(2.) THE facts leading to trial and conviction of the appellants may be stated as follows. On 13.7.1979 at about noon time Jogeshwar Singh (P.W.3) was sitting at his Darwaja in village Gumnari, P.S -Goh in the district of Aurangabad. His son Baliram Singh (P.W.1) came and informed Jageshwar Singh that appellant no.1 was demolishing the wall of his southern khand with spade and he was also saying that part of that land belonged to him. The appellants are agnates of Jageshwar Singh. There was dispute over part of the Khand. On hearing this, Jairam Singh, Baliram Singh and their father Jageshwar Singh went to the Khand and raised voice against high handedness of the appellants. Ram Ishwar Singh and his uncle Biran Singh started abusing them. Biran Singh is alleged to have assaulted the informant with lathi. Ram Ishwar Singh (appellant no.1) fired from his revolver on the chest of Jairam Singh. Jairam Singh died on the spot. Apart from Baliram Singh and Jageshwar Singh, Bishram Sharma, Bageshwar Sharma and Ram Naresh Sharma had also seen the occurrence. On the same day at 3.43 P.M. Jageshwar Singh lodged a report with the Officer - incharge of Goh Police Station and a case under section 302/323 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act was registered. In due course, the appellants were placed on trial.

(3.) MR . Rana Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants has pointed out with reference to the evidence that the occurrence had not taken place at the place as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that Baliram Singh (P.W.1) in his evidence has said that while he was going to graze his bullocks towards the pond, he had seen the appellants demolishing the boundary wall of the Khand. This witness in para -3 of his deposition has stated that the Khand was not situated on the road between his house and the said pond. It was submitted that the evidence of Baliram Singh that having seen the appellant demolishing the wall had gone to inform his father cannot be accepted. This witness denied to have stated before the Investigating Officer that Tribeni Singh, father of appellant no.1 had asked to call his father. Baliram Singh denied to have stated before the Investigating officer that Tribeni Singh, father of appellant no.1, had asked his father as to why he had put fresh earth on the dividing wall of the Khand. He has also denied to have stated before the Investigating Officer that Tribeni Singh had asked the informant that he would not allow to put earth on the said wall as the wall belonged to him (Tribeni). This is contradicted by the Investigating Officer that Tribeni Singh had asked the informant that he would not allow to put earth on the said wall as the wall belonged to him (Tribeni). This is contradicted by the Investigating Officer, who said that this fact was said by Baliram Singh. According to the evidence of Baliram Singh the deceased had sustained gun shot injury from the distance of 10-15 cubits.