Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.512 of 1990 =========================================================== 1. Anandi Noniya, son of Rameshwar Noniya 2. Rameshwar Noniya, son of Late Mauzi Noniya 3. Chandeshwar Noniya, son of Janki Noniya 4. Sheo Balak Noniya, son of late Laljit Nonia All resident of village Rajaura, P.S. Ariyari, District Monghyr .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA) Date: 17-09-2012 This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.11.1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Munger in S.Tr.No. 480/1986 whereby and whereunder the appellant Anandi Noniya has been convicted for offence under [STATUTE] . and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. He has further been convicted for offence under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and five years respectively on the aforesaid counts. All the sentences against him have however been directed to run concurrently. The three other appellants, namely, Rameshwar Noniya, Chandeshwsar Noniya and Sheobalak Noniya have also been convicted for offence under [STATUTE] . and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case, giving rise to the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.512 of 1990 dt.17-09-2012 2 aforementioned impugned judgment, is based on a fardbeyan of the informant Rajesh Kumar Singh (P.W.4) who having taken the dead body of his father Nawal Kishore Singh (deceased) to the police station on 17.4.1985 at about 9.00 P.M. had stated that his father was a quack and used to treat both human being and animals. He has further stated that at about 4.00 P.M. on the same day i.e. 17.4.1985 his father had gone to village Garuwa in the house of Rameshwar Singh to examine a patient in the house of Ram Shekhar Singh and at about 4.30 P.M. a person from Ithara village had come to his (informant‟s) house to call his father for examining his ailing cow. The informant claimed that he had thereafter started for village Garuwa to his father from Garuwa thinking that his father may get delayed in returning back to the house. 3. The further case of the informant is that when he reached near village Belkhundi, he had seen his father returning and thereafter he had joined his father in return journey to his house. He had also stated that while his father was walking in front of him he was some 10-12 paces behind him. According to him, when he had reached near the cluster of palm trees (Tarbanni) situated in south of village, he having felt the urge of urination had sat down for easing himself and at that very moment he had seen sudden emergence of the appellants from one side of the cluster of palm trees. He has alleged Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.512 of 1990 dt.17-09-2012 3 that the appellant Rameshwar Noniya was armed with lathi, appellant Chandeshwar Noniya was armed with gun, appellant Anandi Noniya was armed with bomb, appellant Sheobalak Noniya was armed with a gun and one Ashok Noniya was also armed with gun and all of them were also accompanied by 2 to 3 unknown persons whom the informant did identify by name. According to the informant it was Rameshwar Noniya who having seen his father Nawal Kishore Singh had said that the prey had been spotted and also gave orders to his accompanying members of the mob to kill him and thereafter the appellant Anandi Noniya had hurled a bomb from behind which had exploded on the body of his father and he having raised his voice loudly had fell down on the ground. He has further alleged that a second bomb was also hurled by one Ashok Noniya on his father which, however, did not hit him and thereafter all the members of the mob including the appellants as well as Ashok Noniya with the other 2 to 3 unknown persons had gone away from the place towards village Rajaura shouting „Bajrang Bali Ki Jay‟. 4. The informant has stated that after seeing the injury of his father he had run to his village and had informed about the occurrence to a number of his villagers and thereafter they had gone at the place of occurrence where the dead body of his father was lying. The informant claims that he had carried his father on a cot to his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.512 of 1990 dt.17-09-2012 4 village as he felt that his father was still alive but when he had reached his house he had found that his father had already succumbed to his injuries. The informant claims that while his family members started weeping, he alongwith others had taken the dead body to the police station for reporting the matter to the police. 5. According to the informant, the reason for the aforesaid occurrence was that on 15.4.1985 there was a meeting in which on hearing a speech, the Noniyas and Chamars of village Ekrama had become agitated whereafter they had also taken toddy with the people of Dhadhis community near eastern pond of village Camera and were of the view that in the scuffle it was the Bhumihars of village Camera under the leadership of his father who had instigated the members of Dhadhis community. He had also stated that a day earlier to the occurrence his father had verbal altercation with the appellant Chandeshwar in the block office which was witnessed by Rama Dayanand, Kartik Singh and Dular Singh as also Ram Kishun Singh, Geeta Singh and Dular Singh and in fact for the said verbal altercation a Panchayati was to take place by the Mukhiya of Ekrama village but before it could have been so held, the occurrence leading to murder of his father had taken place. 6. The recording of the aforementi

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.