Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.204 of 1990 =========================================================== 1. Arun Singh son of Late Sant Lal Singh 2. Raju Singh son of Nogen Singh 3. Rameshwar Sah son of Ghansyam Sah, All residents of Village Rosna, P.S. Pranpur Distt- Katihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 215 of 1990 =========================================================== 1. Santosh Sah @ Santosh Kumar Sah son of Raghunath Sah 2. Madho Singh @ Madhaw Singh son of Ghinu Singh 3. Nakul Singh son of Ghinu Singh 4. Ghinu Singh son of Thagnu Singh, All residents of Village Rosna, P.S. Pranpur Distt- Katihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (DB) No. 204 of 1990) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Karuna Nath Sahay, Advocate Mr. Anjan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, APP (In CR. APP (DB) No. 215 of 1990) For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Meeta Sinha (Amicus Curiae) For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) Date: 12-04-2012 Cr. Appeal No. 204/1990 wherein Arun Singh, Raju 2 Singh, Rameshwar I happen to be appellants, Cr. Appeal No. 215/1990 wherein Santosh I @ Santosh Kumar I, Madho Singh @ Madhaw Singh, Nakul Singh, Ghinu Singh happen to be appellant commonly originate from Sessions Trial No. 183/89/306/89 arising out of Pranpur P.S.Case No. 26/89 wherein judgment was delivered on 16th May 1990 by the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar. Hence there has been analogous hearing and accordingly, both the appeals are dealt with by a common judgment with the consent of the parties. 2. In Cr. Appeal No. 204/1990, Sri Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate represented the appellants/convict whereas none represented Cr.Appeal No.215/1990, consequent thereupon Ms. Meeta Sinha has been appointed as an amicus curiae. 3. All the above named appellants i.e., Arun Singh, Madhav Singh, Nakul Singh, Raju Singh, Rameshwar I, Santosh I, Ghinu Singh have been found guilty for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] of the IPC and accordingly, they were directed to undergo RI for life. 4. Jadu Singh, PW-9 gave his Fardbeyan, (Ext-3) on 30.03.89 at about 9:30 a.m. at place of occurrence near the dead body of his son Nako Singh disclosing therein that on 29.03.89 at about 6:00 p.m. he had gone to watch his boring situated at Bichladhar 3 Badhar. His son, Nako Singh had disclosed that you firstly should go, then he will follow after taking meal. He irrigated his paddy crop uptil 7 P.M. and then thereafter he slept. At about 11:00 p.m. he awoke and found his son absent over which he thought that he might remained at his house. At about 5 a.m. when he proceeded towards his house and reached near the field of Radha Babu and Mahangu, he found his son dead. Copious blood was found on account of injury caused at his neck at left side. One Khanti and a receptacle containing five liters of diesel was found there. On his hue and cry, the villagers came. Then had submitted that he has got enmity with his co-villager, Ghinu Singh on account of sinking of boring at that very place as a result of which Ghinu was suffering loss and for that he was always threatening. Then had disclosed that while he was coming to his boring on 29.03.89 at about 6 P.M., Ghinu Singh, Madhav Singh, Nakul Singh had threatened him that either he should stop irrigating others otherwise he will be taught a lesson. Further disclosed that last year there was theft of pump set of Ghinu Singh for which his son was being held responsible and in the aforesaid background, there was scuffle. Accordingly, he shown suspicion against the aforesaid Ghinu Singh, Madhav Singh and Nakul Singh. Further disclosed that aforesaid three persons are absent. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid Fardbeyan, Pranpur P.S. 4 Case No. 26/89 was registered under [STATUTE] followed with investigation and submission of charge-sheet whereupon cognizance was taken and accordingly, case was committed to the court of sessions. Because of the fact that appearance of accused was procured at different occasions therefore two sessions trials originated there-from which was subsequently amalgamated and consequent thereupon been concluded and decided by a common judgment by the learned lower court convicting the appellants as aforesaid. 6. The defence case as is evident from the mode of cross- examination as well as from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that appellant/convict are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of longstanding enmity. In their defence examined two DWs however no document has been exhibited on behalf of the accused. 7. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellants-convicts that the judgment impugned is suffering from conjectures and surmises. Then submitted that there happens to be absence of eyewitness to occurrence. Whoever been examined, have not supported the case of the prosecution so far complicity of appellants-convicts are concerned save and except one Girdhari Rishi and his brother Lobin Rishi whose 5 evidence also do not inspire confidence because of the fact that the manner wherein they had deposed with regard to handing over sword and knife to him by the appellant-convict Raju Singh and Arun Singh became unreliable in the background of the fact that since before the date of occurrence there was dispute coming in between those witness with aforesaid appellant-convict hence story of handing over sword and knife became unreliabl

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.