SAMSUL MIAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment of conviction dated 7.3.1992 and order of sentence dated 9.3.1992 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 380 of 1986/197 of 1989, convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC, besides convicting the appellants no. 1 & 2-Samsul Mian and Amid @ Ayub Mian for the offence under Section 148 IPC, appellants no. 3 to 6-Gulam Mian, Lukman Mian, Chunu Mian and Ali Hussain for the offences under Section 147 IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and further sentencing the appellants no. 1 & 2 to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 148 IPC and appellants no. 3 to 6 to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 147 IPC. However, all the sentences were to run concurrently. The prosecution case in short is that the informant-Md. Ilias Ahmad (PW-3) lodged a fardbeyan on 3.8.1986 at about 3.00 PM to the effect that at about 6.30 AM in the morning he went to the field and found that his uncle-Yabu Mian (deceased) and his cousin-Yakub Ansari (PW-1) were ploughing the field. Soon thereafter, the appellant no. 1-Samsul Mian came and warned them not to plough the field and said that he will plough it. On which, they said that they are ploughing the land of their share. Then Samsul started abusing them and threatened Yabu and went away. After sometime, he alongwith other appellants armed with weapons came there and started assaulting Yabu Mian (deceased), Yakub Ansari (PW-1) and the informant (PW-3) by surrounding them. Appellant-Samsul had Barcha in his hand, the appellant-Amid had bhala in his hand and the other appellants had lathi in their hands. Appellant-Samsul assaulted the deceased on his head by Barcha, appellant-Amid assaulted the deceased with bhala and other appellants assaulted the deceased with lathi. When the informant (PW-3) tried to save the deceased, he was also assaulted, due to which the informant became unconscious and fell on the ground and what happened thereafter, he did not know. Yabu was unconscious. It was alleged that the said occurrence took place due to the land dispute.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds.

(3.) Counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.