Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.2 of 1990 [Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.1989 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1988 /158 of 1987] =========================================================== Jamuna Pandit, son of Shri Ram Bhajan Pandit, resident of village Mussi, Police Station Makhdumpur, District Jehanabad. .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 7 of 1990 =========================================================== 1. Umesh Pandit @ Umaid son of Late Ramawtar Pandit 2. Arbind Pandit son of Late Ram Awtar Pandit 3. Dinesh Pandit son of Late Ram Awtar Pandit All residents of village Murhibira, P.S. Makhdumpur in the district of Jehanabad. .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (DB) No. 2 of 1990) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Laxmikant Sharma, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP (In CR. APP (DB) No. 7 of 1990) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 26-04-2012 1. Cr. Appeal No. 2 of 1990 (D. B.) filed by Jamuna Pandit and Cr. Appeal No. 7 of 1990 filed by Umesh Pandit @ Umaid, Arbind Pandit and Dinesh Pandit have been heard together because both the appeals have Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.2 of 1990 dt.26-04-2012 2 arisen out of a common judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.1989 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1988/ 158 of 1987 whereby all the appellants were held guilty under [STATUTE] . Umaid @ Umesh Pandit was further held guilty under [STATUTE] . Arvind Pandit and Umesh Pandit were further held guilty under [STATUTE] . All the appellants were sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under [STATUTE] . No separate sentence was passed against the appellant Umaid @ Umesh Pandit under [STATUTE] . Umesh Pandit and Arvind Pandit were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under [STATUTE] . 2. The prosecution case, as per written report of informant Ranjan Mistri (P.W. 6)- covillager of the appellants given on 31.3.1986 at 7.30 a.m. addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Makhdumpur Police Station was that on the same date at about Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.2 of 1990 dt.26-04-2012 3 preceeding 6 a.m. the informant (P.W. 6) along with his father Lakhan Mistri (P. W. 5) was harvesting barley crop. At that very time accused Umesh Pandit @ Umaid, Dinesh Pandit, Arvind Pandit and Jamuna Pandit came there. Jamuna Pandit and Umesh Pandit were having lathi and Dinesh Pandit and Arvind Pandit were having garasa. After arriving at the field Umesh Pandit ordered to assault upon which Dinesh Pandit and Arvind Pandit assaulted from garasa as a result of which the informant’s head was broken. Lakhan Mistry and Raju Mistri were assaulted by lathi. On informant’s cry Ramanand Sharma (not examined), Ramswaroop Mistri (not examined), Lalan Mistry (P.W. 1) and Ramashish Mahto (not examined) came, intervened and pecified the matter. Written report signed by Ranjan Mistry, son of Lakhan Mistry (P.W. 5) has been marked as Ext. 1. Formal FIR (Ext. 3) of Makhdumpur P. S. Case No. 45 of 1986 under [STATUTE] was registered and investigation commenced. Injured Raju Mistry Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.2 of 1990 dt.26-04-2012 4 was taken to Patna Medical Hospital for treatment but he died and so by order of the Court [STATUTE] was added. After commencement of investigation, Inquest Report (Ext. 4), Post-mortem Report (Ext. 5), Injury Reports (Ext. 2 to 2/2) were obtained. Statement of witnesses was recorded and finding the allegation to be true charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions where charge under [STATUTE] was explained to Umesh Pandit, Arbind Pandit, Dinesh Pandit and Jamuna Pandit, charge under [STATUTE] was further explained to Umesh Pandit and Jamuna Pandit for causing hunt to Lakhan Mistry, charge under [STATUTE] was further explained to Dinesh Pandit and Arbind Pandit for causing hunt to Ranjan Mistry, and charge under [STATUTE] was further explained to Umesh Pandit. The accused persons pleaded innocence and so the trial proceeded. 3. The defence of the appellants Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.2 of 1990 dt.26-04-2012 5 was of false implication on account of enmity. The further defence was that the prosecution has not given true version and the death was not in the manner as alleged. 4. After analyzing the evidence, hearing the submissions of the parties and going through the materials on record, the trial court found the appellants guilty and so the judgment of conviction and sentence was passed. 5. This Court is required to see as to the whether the prosecution has been able to prove its charge against the appellants beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts or not. 6. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses who are P. W. 1 Lallan Mistri, P. W. 2 Lakhan Paswan, P.W. 3 Simti Devi, P. W. 4 Sheo Sharan Yadav, P. W. 5 Lakhan Mistri, P. W. 6 Ranjan Mistri, P. W. 7 Dr. Ram Saran Pd. Singh, P. W. 8 Md. Ashique, P. W. 9 Dr. Ram Krishna Singh, P. W. 10 Narain Prasad, P. W. 11 Birendra Singh and P.W. 12 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.2 of 1990 dt.26-04-2012 6 Achyutanand. The defence has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. 7. P. Ws. 3 and 4 hav

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.