Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.403 of 1990 =========================================================== 1. Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav son of Neti Yadav, 2. Chit Narain Yadav son of Surya Narain Yadav, both resident of village Kalo Hata, Police Station Murliganj, Distt- Madhepura. 3. Naresh Yadav, 4. Phool Kumar Yadav : both sons of Surya Yadav, residents of village Arar, P.S. Murliganj, District-Madhepura .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 417 of 1990 =========================================================== 1. Jai Narain Yadav @ Gannu son of Surya Narain Yadav, 2. Chandra Kumar Yadav son of Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav : both resident of village Kalo Hata, Police Station Murliganj, Distt- Madhepura. .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (DB) No. 403 of 1990) & (In CR. APP (DB) No. 417 of 1990) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raj Kumar Rajesh, Adv. For the Respondent/s :Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) Date: 05-10-2012 Appellants of both these two appeals have challenged monocarpous judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.1990 passed by 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Sessions Trial No. 95/1990 convicting all the appellants for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] and all except appellant Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.403 of 1990 dt.05-10-2012 2 Rajeshwar Pd. Yadav for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] , Section 27 of the Arms Act while appellant Rajeshwar Pd. Yadav has been found guilty for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] and accordingly, they all have been directed to undergo RI for life under [STATUTE] and except appellant Rajeshwar Pd. Yadav, all of them have been further sentenced to undergo RI for two years under [STATUTE] in addition to RI for four years under Section 27 of the Arms Act while Rajeshwar Pd. Yadav has been inflicted RI for one year under [STATUTE] . All the sentences of the appellants however have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The factual matrix of the case originates on the basis of the Fardbeyan, (Ext-2) given by Satrughan Pd. Yadav (PW-7) on 16.09.1987 at about 9:00 a.m. alleging inter alia that his father, Bhola Yadav (deceased), who was a Mukhiya accompanied by him had gone to Arar Panchayat for distribution of old age pension. According to informant it become late and night had set in they had stayed in the house of Mukhiya of Arar Panchayat, namely, Uma Kant Yadav. The informant has further stated that on 16.09.1987 at about 5:00 a.m. he along with Chitnarayan Yadav and his father, Bhola Yadav had stated from Arar for their village and while they had reached at Beldaur canal at about 6:30 a.m., his father Bhola Yadav who was at 50 yards ahead them, while he and Chitnarayan Yadav were following his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.403 of 1990 dt.05-10-2012 3 father, he had seen appellants Rajeshwar Yadav, Chandra Kumar Yadav, Jai Narain Yadav @ Gannu Yadav, Chit Narain Yadav armed variously emerging from eastern flank of the canal while appellants Naresh Yadav, Phul Kumar Yadav with one co-accused Raj Kumar (since dead) variously armed appearing from western flank of the canal. The informant in his ferdbeyan had also specified that while appellant Rajeshwar Yadav was having a Lathi in his hand appellant, Jai Narain Yadav @ Gannu was having a Dabia, (fire arm) while rest were of them also armed with fire arms (country made gun). According to informant where they had reached near his father, on an order given by appellant Rajeshwar, appellant Chandra Kumar had shot at his father causing injury over his chest and his father having sustained such injury had fallen down. The informant had further alleged that thereafter Jai Narayan and the rest of the persons had chased them (PWs-1 and 7) on account of which they having raised hullah had escaped therefrom. According to informant on account of hullah raised by them (PW1 and PW7) several people from vicinity present at bahiar had come at the place of occurrence as a result whereof all the accused persons had fled away. The informant had claimed that thereafter, he along with Raju Toofan, Yogendra Yadav, Muslim Mian, Shankar Yadav came at the place of occurrence and had found his father dead who was having blood over his chest as well as his neck having been also slit. The informant had also stated other Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.403 of 1990 dt.05-10-2012 4 persons had also witnessed the accused persons during course of their escape. The motive for occurrence according to informant was that that a year back, his father (deceased) was actually instrumental in getting appellant Jai Narain arrested by the police. 3. On the basis of aforesaid Fardbeyan Murliganj P.S. Case No. 232/87 was registered against appellants as one Raj Kumar and investigation was taken up by police which after completing the same had submitted its charge-sheet. Consequent thereupon, the appellants faced trial during midst of which one of the accused Raj Kumar had died on 16.4.1990 and on account thereof proceeding against him was dropped while the remaining appellants were convicted and sentenced by the trial court by the impugned judgment which are subject matter of these two appeals. 4. The defence case, as is evident from the mode of cross- examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement of accused appellants recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, one of complete denial of the occurrence as also their being falsely implicated on account of longstanding enmity persisting amongst

Applicable IPC Section: 148

Statute Text:
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting armed with deadly Weapon. Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.