Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.278 of 2005 [Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.3.2005 passed by Sri Deepak Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 249 of 1997, Trial No. 408 of 2002] =========================================================== Parsuram Mandal son of Ram Kulanjan Das resident of village Kisanpur, P.s. Nathnagar District Bhagalpur. .... .... Appellant Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 335 of 2005 =========================================================== Bhudeo Yadav son of Govind Yadav, resident of village Kishanpur P.S. Nathnagar District Bhagalpur. .... .... Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (DB) No. 278 of 2005) (In CR. APP (DB) No. 335 of 2005) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Date: 23-08-2012 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 278 of 2005 has been filed by Parsuram Mandal and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 335 of 2005 has been filed by Bhudeo Yadav against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.3.2005 passed by the learned Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.278 of 2005 dt.23-08-2012 2 Additional Sessions Judge, F. T. C. –V, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 249 of 1997, Trial No. 408 of 2002 by which both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under [STATUTE] . The appellant Bhudeo Yadav has further been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Babar Ali (P.W. 2) had purchased fruits of mango orchard from Siyasharan Chaudhari situated at Mouza Kishanpur and appointed the informant (P.W. 6), his father Lattu Mandal (deceased), his cousin brother Ram Bilas Mandal (P.W. 7) and Anik Mandal (P.W. 5) to look after the orchard. On 27.5.1995 the workers of Babar Ali (P.W. 2) were plucking mango, in the meantime at about 1 p.m. Bhudeo Yadav, Parsuram Mandal (both appellants), Arun Mandal and Pappu Yadav came to Orchard and asked the informant and others to get paid the ransom of Rs.5000/- from their master. The watchman (informant) and others told them to ask money from the owner of orchard which infuriated the accused persons. Parsuram Mandal (appellant) made scuffling with Lattu Mandal, the father of the informant and other accused pointed out their Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.278 of 2005 dt.23-08-2012 3 pistol out of them Bhudeo Yadav (appellant) shot fire at Lattu Mandal which caused injury in his chest and he fell down and succumbed to the injury. After this firing all the accused went towards northern side. The occurrence was witnessed by the watchmen (informant) and others and also by the workers. The fard beyan (Ext. 4) of the informant was recorded by the Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge of Nathnagar police station on 27.5.1995 at 5 P.M. at village Kishanpur. 3. On the basis of this fard beyan (Ext. 4) Nath Nagar P. S. Case No. 100 of 1995 was instituted under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act against the appellants and two others, namely, Arun Mandal and Pappu Yadav. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] against the appellant Parsuram Mandal to which they denied and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the trial proceeded against both the appellants. After trial both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. The defence of the accused is complete denial of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.278 of 2005 dt.23-08-2012 4 5. Now this Court is required to reappraise the evidence to see as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its charge beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. 6. The prosecution has examined altogether 14 witnesses to prove its charge :- they are P. W. 1 Tarini Prasad, P. W. 2 Md. BabarAli, P. W. 3 Fantoos Kumar Mandal, P. W. 4 Bhaggo Tanti, P. W. 5 Anik Lal, P. W. 6 Ravindra Kumar, P. W. 7 Ram Bilas Mandal, P. W. 8 Murari Tanti, P. W. 9 Chandragupta Mandal, P. W. 10 Nand Kishore Mandal @ Nanda, P. W. 11 Dr. Nagendra Narain Bhagat, P. W. 12 Bhardwaj Mandal, P. W. 13 Pramod Mandal, and P. W. 14 Md. Shakoor. No witness has been adduced on behalf of the defence. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution has not examined independent witnesses. P. W. 6 the informant, is the son of the deceased. P. W. 10 is also another son of the deceased. They are interested witnesses and their evidence has not been corroborated by any independent witness. The Investigating Officer has also not been examined which has caused prejudice to the appellants. It has further been submitted that there is no evidence on the record to suggest that the appellants had shared the common intention to commit the murder of the deceased as such the conviction under Section Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.278 of 2005 dt.23-08-2012 5 302/34 IPC is not sustainable against the appellants. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the prosecution is not required to examine all the witnesses although P. W. 6 and P. W. 10 are the sons of the deceased and certainly they are interested witnesses but on this ground alone their evidence cannot be thrown out. Non-examination of Invest

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.