Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ***** Criminal Appeal (DB) No.348 of 1989 Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19th of July, 1989 passed by Shri Prem Narain Shukla, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 138 of 1988. ***** =========================================================== Rajendra Chaudhary, Son of Dauli Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Chanp Kanhauli, Police Station-Barharia, District-Siwan. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent. =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Amicus Curiae. For the Respondent : 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: 24-04-2012 ***** When the appeal was called out repeatedly then nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellant. This Court is in seisin of old criminal appeals (Division Bench) and it has been noted in the top of the list that „no adjournment would be granted in first ten appeals‟ and the arguing counsel had not appeared on behalf of the appellant despite repeated calls. In order to expedite the hearing amicus curiae has to be appointed. 2. Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1989 dt.24-04-2012 2/16 present in the Court and volunteers to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Considering his willingness, Shri Pramod Kumar Singh is being appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. Let a copy of the brief of the appeal be handed over to newly appointed Amicus Curiae. The appeal is passed over and is being taken after lunch for hearing. 3. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.07.1989 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 138 of 1988, whereby the sole appellant was found guilty under [STATUTE] and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Two more persons were put on trial but those two persons namely Chandrika Chaudhary and Dauli Chaudhary were acquitted as no evidence was found against them. 4. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to point out certain dates: Date of occurrence – 01.10.1987 at 11.45 p.m. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1989 dt.24-04-2012 3/16 Date of Fardbeyan – 02.10.1987 at 06.00 a.m. Date of Registration of FIR – 02.10.1987 at 11.15 a.m. Date of dispatch of FIR to Court – 02.10.1987. Received in the Court - 05.10.1987 5. In the night of 01/02nd October, 1987 at about just preceding midnight i.e. at 11.45 p.m. The informant Swaminath Choudhary P.W.8, was sleeping beneath Neem tree in the Sahan while his father Ramswaroop Chaudhary was sleeping in a Palani towards east. At 11.45 p.m. in the night on hearing sound which disturbed the sleep of the informant P.W.8 went towards Palani and noticed that three persons were coming out therefrom. The informant identified this appellant with a country made pistol and Chandrika Chaudhary and Dauli Chaudhary with iron rod and Gupti respectively. The alarm was raised by the informant but one of the accused shouted that real person is survived. Villagers rushed to the place of occurrence and chased the accused but they succeeded in escaping. After coming back, it Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1989 dt.24-04-2012 4/16 was found that Ramswaroop Chaudhary was lying in pool of blood in Palani and by that time he was dead. The informant divulged the names of the assailants to the villagers. The motive alleged in the fardbeyan was that prior to the occurrence Rajendra Chaudhary had stabbed the informant‟s father on his stomach but he survived. That occurrence led to a case pending in Sessions Court. A proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other litigations were also going on between the parties. The fardbeyan was witnessed by Mahesh Chaudhary (not examined) and Prabhu Chaudhary P.W.3 and it was having signature of the informant Ext.1. Unfortunately, the fardbeyan has not been brought on record and only signature of the investigating officer on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.3. The fardbeyan resulted into formal First Information Report as Barhariya P.S. Case No. 116 of 1987 dated 02.10.1987 under [STATUTE] against Rajendra Chaudhary, Dauli Chaudhary and Chandrika Chaudhary. The investigation was taken up and in course of investigation inquest report (Ext.6) was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1989 dt.24-04-2012 5/16 prepared, blood stained earth was seized (Ext.5), post-mortem examination report (Ext.2) was obtained. The seized blood was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination but the FSL report was not brought on record. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where charge under [STATUTE] was explained to all the three accused persons and when they pleaded innocence the trial proceeded. 6. The defence of the accused persons was of false implication on account of enmity which was apparent and on account of pending litigations. 7. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined ten witnesses they are P.W.1 Sheojee Chaudhary, P.W.2 Saddique Mian, P.W.3 Prabhu Dayal Chaudhary, P.W.4 Jagan Chaudhary, P.W.5 Raghuni Chaudhary, P.W.6 Hari Lal, P.W.7 Dina Nath Chaudhary, P.W.8 Swami Nath Chaudhary, the informant, P.W.9 Dr. M.N. Singh who held the post-mortem upon the dead body and P.W.10 Vindhyachal Singh, the investigating officer. The Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1989 dt.24-04-2012 6/16 defence has not adduced any evidence. The trial court after considering the evidence on record disbelieve

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.