Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ***** Criminal Appeal (DB) No.42 of 2005 Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 03.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 07.12.2004 passed by Shri Pradeep Nath Tiwari, the P.O. Additional Court (F.T.C.) No. 1, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sessions Trial No. 18/104 of 1985/2001. =========================================================== 1. Shiv Prasad Singh, Son of Bhuti Singh, 2. Umesh Singh, Son of Shiv Prasad Singh, 3. Kapil Singh, Son of Jaga Singh, 4. Akhilesh Singh @ Akhileshwar Singh Son of Jaga Singh All residents of Village – Muzran, Police Station – Nokha, at present Jigna, Police Station – Dinara, District – Rohtas. .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 71 of 2005 =========================================================== Mangroo Singh, Son of Late Jang Bahadur Singh, Resident of Village – Jigna, Police Station – Dinara, District – Rohtas at Sasaram. .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : (In both the appeals) For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kr. Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondent : 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 SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 21-09-2012 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 42 of 2005 on behalf of Shiv Prasad Singh, Umesh Singh, Kapil Singh and Akhilesh Singh @ Akhileshwar Singh and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 71 of 2005 on behalf of Mangroo Singh have been taken up together because both Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.42 of 2005 dt.21-09-2012 2 the appeals have arisen out of one judgment and order of conviction dated 03.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 07.12.2004 passed by Shri Pradeep Nath Tiwari, the learned P.O. Additional Court (F.T.C.) No. 1, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sessions Trial No. 18/104 of 1985/2001, whereby all the accused namely, Mangroo Singh, Kapil Singh, Akhileshwar Singh, Shiv Prasad Singh, Umesh Singh have been sentenced to undergo RI for life under [STATUTE] and also the accused Akhileshwar Singh sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under [STATUTE] and further the accused Akhileshwar Singh and Mangroo Singh were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The sentences awarded against the accused Akhileshwar Singh and Mangroo Singh were directed to run concurrently. 2. The fardbeyan recorded by officer-in-charge of Dinara police station on 06.12.1981 at 09.30 p.m. of P.W.4 Bihari Singh alleged that on the same day in the afternoon the informant and his brother co-accused Shiv Prasad Singh went to see their field and asked for sharing the property namely buffalo but it was declined by Shiv Prasad Singh who claimed that the buffalo was the gift to him by his in-laws. This caused altercation whereupon accused Shiv Prasad Singh threatened him to dire consequences. In Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.42 of 2005 dt.21-09-2012 3 the same evening P.W. 4 and his brother Ramadhar Singh P.W. 2 were in Khalihan then the Mangroo Singh with his licensed gun, Kapil Singh with Bhala, Akhileshwar Singh with countrymade gun, Shiv Prasad Singh with Bhala and Umesh Singh with Garasa came and the informant escaped and raised hulla upon which Kamta Singh (the deceased), Jag Dayal Singh P.W. 1, Bishwanath Singh P.W. 3, Ramadhar Singh P.W. 2 and others came. Mangroo Singh fired from his rifle which caused injury in the stomach of Kamta Singh (the deceased) who fell down. Second firing by Akhileshwar Singh caused injury in the right arm of Jagdayal Singh P.W. 1. After committing the occurrence, the accused persons escaped to the northern side. Kamta Singh died in the way while he was on way for Dinara Hospital for treatment. 3. The fardbeyan resulted into formal FIR of Dinara P.S. Case No. 220 of 1981 under [STATUTE] and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The important aspect of the fardbeyan is that it was recorded at 9.30 p.m. on 06.12.1981 but the record shows that it has been received in the court on 22.12.1981 i.e. after more than two weeks of the occurrence. After cognizance being taken, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where charge under [STATUTE] was explained to all the accused. Charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 307 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.42 of 2005 dt.21-09-2012 4 of the IPC was explained to Akhileshwar Singh, Charge under [STATUTE] and Section 27 of the Arms Act was explained to Mangroo Singh. They pleaded their innocence then the trial proceeded. 4. The defence of the accused was of false implication on account of enmity. Their further defence was that Mangroo Singh was of such an advanced age that it was not possible for him to commit such an offence. It has been submitted that Mangroo Singh has crossed in his late eighties and he was not strong enough to inflict such injuries. A Barat party had come to the village and due to negligent firing of one member of Barat party the injuries were caused which led to death and injury. 5. The trial court after considering the prosecution and defence version opined that the charges were proved so order of conviction was passed. 6. This Court is required to reappraise the evidence and to see as to whether the prosecution was able to prove the charge against the appellant beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts or not. 7. The prosecution has examined four witnesses they are P.W. 1 Jag Dayal Singh the injured, P.W. 2 Ramadhar Singh the FIR named witness who turned hostile, P.W. 3 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.42 of 2005 dt.21-09-2012 5 Bishwanath Singh who has seen escaping and knew about the occurrence later on meaning thereby t

Applicable IPC Section: 149

Statute Text:
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. If an offence be committed by any member of an unlawful assembly, every other member of such assembly shall be guilty of the offence. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.