Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.51 of 1990 [Against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18th December 1989 passed by Sri Kapileshwar Prasad, learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 358 of 1987/11 of 1989] =========================================================== 1. Binda Gope, son of Baleshwar Gope 2. Rajju Singh, son of Bengali Singh All residents of village Mai Farida, Police Station Rahui, in the district of Nalanda. .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 52 of 1990 =========================================================== Vijay Paswan son of Yadu Paswan, resident of village Mai Farida P. S. Rahui, District-Nalanda. .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (DB) No. 51 of 1990) (In CR. APP (DB) No. 52 of 1990) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arun, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, APP For the informant Mr. Vidya Sagar, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Date: 08-05-2012 1. Cr. Appeal No. 51 of 1990 (D.B.) filed on behalf of the appellants Binda Gope and Rajju Singh Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.51 of 1990 dt.08-05-2012 2 and Cr. Appeal No. 52 of 1990 (D.B.) filed on behalf of the appellant Vijay Paswan have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18th December 1989 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 358 of 1987/11 of 1989 by which appellants Binda Gope and Vijay Paswan have been convicted under [STATUTE] and appellant Rajju Singh has been convicted under [STATUTE] and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment dated 18th December 1989 passed in the aforesaid Sessions trial, as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Sitaram pandey informant (P.W. 4) had gone to Bathan (cattle shed) of Mochhu Saw (not examined) in the evening of 31.3.1987 at about 7 p.m. he heard the noise of firing and saw that many co-villagers had assembled and sound of firing was coming out from his house. After firing he entered into the house and saw that his wife Ahilaya Devi (deceased) was lying dead and his sons Balmiki Pandey (P.W. 3) aged about 11 years and Parsuram Pandey (P.W. 1) aged about 9 years were weeping. On query, both of them stated that they were taking meal with their mother (deceased). In the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.51 of 1990 dt.08-05-2012 3 meantime, seven persons entered into the house, out of them they identified Rajju Singh, Vijay Paswan and Binda Gope (appellants) of village Mai Farida. All the assailants were wearing Kurta and Paijama and were armed with rifle and pistol. After seeing them the wife of the informant fled away and they followed her. Vijay Paswan, Rajju Singh and Binda Yadav chased and caught hold of her. Vijay Paswan instigated to kill her. Rajju Singh caught hold of her head. Binda Yadav also caught her. Vijay Paswan exploded a bomb which caused instant death of the deceased. Both the sons of the informant went to the roof and saw the occurrence. Villagers came there and followed the culprits but they escaped. It has been further stated that the informant has no enmity with any person. The fard beyan of the informant (P.W. 4) was recorded by S. I. Mahesh Singh (P.W. 5) of Rahui Police Station on 1.4.1987 at 2 a.m. at village Mai Farida. On the basis of fardbeyan Rahui P. S. Case No. 28 of 1987 was registered for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . First informant report (Ext. 3/1) and fardeyan (Ext. 3) were received in the office of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 1.4.1987. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charge under [STATUTE] was framed against the appellant Rajju Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.51 of 1990 dt.08-05-2012 4 Singh and charge under [STATUTE] was framed against the appellants Binda Gope and Vijay Paswan to which they denied and claimed to be tried. 3. The defence of the accused is that they have been falsely implicated in this case and the informant is a puppet of Sitaram Pandey, Advocate. The informant was running a grocery shop in his house in which he used to sell country made liquor and his wife Ahilya Devi (deceased) was a lady of doubtful character who had illicit relation with Baleshwar Singh an Ex-Mukhiya, eldest brother of said Sitaram Singh. The factum of death of the deceased has not been challenged but their plea is that the family members of the said Baleshwar did not relish the illicit connection of Baleshwar Singh with the deceased and it has been indirectly suggested that the son of Baleshwar Singh namely, Madan Singh, one Mahesh Choudhary and Chandu had their hands in this occurrence, who had been seen after the occurrence running at some distance from the house of the informant with firearms and bombs. It has also been pleaded that the son of Sardar Bangali Singh, namely, Triloki Singh was murdered and a case was filed against Sitaram Singh, Baleshwar singh, Madan Singh & others which was registered as Rahui (Wena) P. S. Case No. 34 of 1986 and the present appellant Razzu Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.51 of 1990 dt.08-05-2012 5 Singh is the son of said Sardar Bangali Singh and the accused Vijay Paswas is his Barahil (worker) and Binda Singh is also the own man of Rajju Singh and they have

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.