Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.69 of 1998 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 11.2.1998, PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 353/88 BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MUNGER. =========================================================== Roopchand Mandal, Son of Khunni Mandal, Resident of Village Sitaram Tola (Farda), P.S. Muffassil, District Munger. .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 76 of 1998 =========================================================== 1. Jai Mangal Mandal, Son of Late Badri Mandal. 2. Tunuk Mandal, Son of Fakhan Mandal. 3. Umesh Mandal @ Uma Mandal, Son of Bauku Mandal. 4. Hafla Mandal, Son of Kusho Mandal. All are resident of Village Sitaram Tola (Farda), P.S. Muffassil, District Munger. .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 101 of 1998 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 11.2.1998, PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 353A/88 BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MUNGER. =========================================================== Surendra Mandal, Son of Jitu Mandal, Resident of Village Sitaram Tola (Farda), P.S. Muffassil, District Munger. .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 69 of 1998) For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Amicus Curiae (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 76 of 1998) For the Appellants : Mr. Ranbir Singh, Amicus Curiae (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 101 of 1998) For the Appellant : Ms. Abha Singh, Amicus Curiae For the State in all the cases : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 1998 dt.11-12-2012 2 / 5 2 ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-12-2012 S.A. Khan, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants in all these appeals. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Ranbir Singh and Ms. Abha Singh are appointed Amicus Curiae in these cases to assist this Court. 2. These criminal appeals arise out of Sessions Case No. 353/88 and Sessions Case No. 353A/88. The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger has found the appellants, Jai Mangal Mandal and Umesh Mandal @ Uma Mandal guilty of offences under [STATUTE] and has sentenced them to R.I. for three years and two years respectively. Appellants Roopchand Mandal, Surendra Mandal, Tunuk Mandal and Hafla Mandal have been found guilty under [STATUTE] and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case as per the informant Sachchidanand Kunwar is based on a written report given by him on 15.5.1987 for an occurrence which took place on 14.5.1987. In the written report he has stated that he was going to the market. When he reached the main road, the appellants armed with pistol and rifle came to the place of occurrence. Jai Mangal Mandal is said to have told his accomplices that the informant is responsible for stopping them from Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 1998 dt.11-12-2012 3 / 5 3 stealing ‘Parwal’ (vegetable). After which he fired at him which did not hit him. It is alleged that Umesh Mandal also fired at him which also did not hit him. In the meantime, the miscreants took away Rs. 450/- from him. It is said that Rajendra, Surendra, Arjun Kumar and one Kirani witnessed the occurrence. He has stated that the appellants were all mounted on horses. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the trial commenced and four witnesses were examined. The F.I.R. witnesses have been examined and claimed that they were also traveling on the same road when they saw the appellant commit the said acts. All three of them admit that they cannot give details regarding the weapons carried by the appellants. Some of them have stated that they arrived on the alarm raised by the informant whereas P.W. 3 has specifically stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, the appellants were not present at the place of occurrence, therefore, it appears that these witnesses actually came to the place of occurrence after it took place and on hearing the sound of the alleged firing. They have also not supported the case that the appellants had a scuffle with the informant and had taken away Rs. 450/- as such it cannot be said that these witnesses had seen the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. 4. The informant has been examined as P.W. 4. In his chief, he has supported the First Information Report. In the cross- Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 1998 dt.11-12-2012 4 / 5 4 examination he has revealed that on the same day, Jai Mangal Mandal had filed a case against the appellant which was pending in the Court of Smt. Reeta Mishra. The judgment of the said case has been exhibited. It would also appear from the evidence that there is a specific allegation that the appellants had surrounded the informant. 5. In view of the evidence led in the Trial Court, it is apparent that there is a dispute between the two i.e. the appellants and the informant and each of them is trying to get an upper hand. It is said that the accused in the counter case, had made a demand from the informant (appellants before this Court) for payment of some money, there was also a dispute with respect to harvesting the vegetables grown, each of them claiming their right to the usufructs. The manner of occurrence is completely unbelievable as per the story narrated in the First Information Report and in Court. It cannot be believed that six persons would surround the informant and fire on him without there being any injury. The evidence also discloses that on s

Applicable IPC Section: 149

Statute Text:
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. If an offence be committed by any member of an unlawful assembly, every other member of such assembly shall be guilty of the offence. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.