ANIL YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Nos. 1 to 5 were arrayed as A -1 to A -5. Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were charged under Section 148 IPC and appellant Nos. 4 and 5 were charged under Section 147 IPC. They were also charged under Section 302/149 IPC and the trial judge, finding the appellants guilty, as charged, while sentencing each one of them to imprisonment for life for the offence of murder, found appellant Nos. 1 to 3 guilty under Section 148 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment The appellant Nos. 4 and 5, on being found guilty under Section 147 IPC, were sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.

(2.) TAUKI Marik, deceased in this case, is the father of PW -9, Srimant Marik. According to the prosecution, there were land disputes between the deceased and the appellants. On 22.1.1989 at about 7.00 a.m. the deceased Tauki Marik accompanied by his son, PW -9, Srimant Marik, was proceeding to the house of Janardhan Mandal for purchasing fodder. While they were on their way, the appellant accosted them. The 1st appellant was armed with a pistol, 2nd appellant and 3rd appellant were armed with Garasa and Barchi respectively and 4th and 5th appellants were armed with Lathis. They surrounded the deceased and the 1st accused Anil Yadav shot at him. On receiving gun shot injury, the deceased fell down in front of the house of PW -2, Bhudeo Mandal. The 2nd accused, Chaturbhuj Yadav, struck on his head with Garasa while 3rd accused, Bhushan Yadav, struck him with Barchi, 4th accused, Subhash Yadav, and 5th accused, Chaniklal Yadav, beat him with lathi. Srimant Marik, PW -9, tried to rescue his father but he was pushed away. On hearing cries, villagers gathered, including PW -4, Kaushalya Devi, who is the wife of the deceased, and PW -5, Krishna Devi, the daughter of the deceased. The occurrence was witnessed by PW -6, Binod Marik, PW -7, Jyotish Yadav, apart from PW -9, Srimant Marik. The appellants went away from the place and the deceased was taken to Godda hospital. On the way, he died. On getting information, PW -11, Ashok Kumar Singh, Officer -in -charge of Godda Police Station reached the scene of occurrence to whom PW -9, Srimant Marik, gave Fardbayan, Ext.3. This was registered as a crime under Ext.6. During the course of investigation, inquest was conducted over the dead body by the Officer. The inquest report is Ext.5. After the inquest, the dead body was sent to the hospital for autopsy and the doctor conducted autopsy (the doctor, who conducted autopsy, was not examined before the trial court).

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that Ext.3, the Fardbayan, could not have come into existence, in the manner suggested by the prosecution, and there must have been another complaint with the police and that the documents were manipulated by the investigating agency so as to implicate the appellants with the crime on account of prior motive. It is his further submission that the prosecution not having proved the cause of death of the deceased, Tauki Marik, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.