Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.128 of 1989 ====================================================== Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.03.1989 passed in Sessions Trial No. 214 of 1986/21 of 1988 by Sri Prem Narain Shukla, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan ======================================================= 1. RAMADHAR CHOUDHARY @ RAMADHAR YADAV SON OF GANGA CHOUDHARY @ GANGA YADAV 2. BHAGWAN LAL CHOUDHARY @ BHAGWAN LAL YADAV SON OF GIRDHARI YADAV @ GIRDHARI CHOUDHARY 3. BIR BAHADUR SINGH SON OF BHUBANESHWAR SINGH 4. SURENDRA SINGH SON OF NANDJI SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SARAUT, P.S.- SISWAN, DISTRICT- SIWAN…………………………………………...... .... APPELLANT/S Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR………………………….... .. RESPONDENT/S ======================================================= Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip 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) ================================ Above named four appellants have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14th March, 1989 passed in Sessions Trial No. 214 of 1986/21 of 1988 relating to Siswan P.S. Case No. 55 of 1982 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan by which appellant no. 1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] and appellant nos. 2 to 4 have been convicted under sections 302/149 of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 1989 dt.06-01-2012 2 the Indian Penal Code and all have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. On the basis of statement made in fard-beyan (Ext. 6) of Manan Harizan (PW 6-A) before the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Siswan Police Station, the case has been registered. The allegation relates to an occurrence of about 8.00 P.M. on 27.6.1982 when the informant, his co-villagers and villagers of village Saraut, 100 in numbers, took out Lukari from the village. This function was being organized annually to drive away the evil which was being suspected to be carried to the cattles of village which was affecting the cattles in the form of diseases. The Lukari was taken from the village and it was thrown to the boundary of other village. The mob in the form of procession went towards east and south in Diyara. All were keeping mum but the persons of the procession were having lathi and Lukari. The processionist crossed Nala near the hut of Brahmacharijee, thereafter, Kishundev Harijan (deceased), brother of the informant, was surrounded by the accused persons and one Bhikhi Choudhary (who later on died). Allegation is that amongst the surrounding accused persons Ramadhar Choudhary and Bhagwan Lal Choudhary both of them gave Bhala blows to Kishundev Harijan. Bhala blow given by Ramadhar Choudhary hit in the left portion of the chest of Kishundev Harijan whereas Bhala blow given by Bhagwan Lal Choudhary hit upon the testicles of Kishundev Harijan. On account of aforesaid assault, Kishundev Harijan fell down and accused persons took their heels. The informant found his brother Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 1989 dt.06-01-2012 3 unconscious. While he was carried to the village, he succumbed to the injuries. Some litigation with the informant on one side and the accused persons on other side were the motive of the occurrence. The occurrence was witnessed by Khakhan Harijan (PW 4), Chandrama Ram (PW 3), Sheojee Harizan (PW 1), Baleshwar Harijan (PW 7) and others. The fard-beyan of the informant resulted in formal FIR (Ext. 2) vide Siswan P.S. Case No. 55 of 1982. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted. After completion of all paraphernalia i.e. after appearance of all the parties and supply of police papers, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charges were explained to the accused persons. The defence of the accused persons was of false implication on account of enmity which has been admitted in the fard-beyan itself. 3. Before the learned trial court, the prosecution examined altogether 13 witnesses. They were Sheojee Harizan (PW 1), Chandeshwar Prasad (PW 2), Chandrama Ram (PW 3), Khakhan Harijan (PW 4), Ganesh Ram (PW 5), Mukhram (PW 6), Manan Harijan (PW 6 A), Baleshwar harijan (PW 7), Bhagu Harijan (PW 8), Nawal Kishore Singh (PW ix), D. N. Srivastava (PW 10), Sheo Kumar Sharma (PW 4) and Gopi Krishna Bihari Prasad (PW 12). 4. PW 2 is a formal witness and has proved the writing of fard-beyan and formal FIR which has been marked as Exts. 1 and 2. PW 5 Ganesh Ram has signed upon the seizure list (Ext. 5) and he is not the witness of occurrence rather he is the witness of the seizure list of Lukari and blood-stained soil. PW 7 is an FIR named witness Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 1989 dt.06-01-2012 4 but he has been tendered by the prosecution. 5. PW 12 who has come after much persuasion has been tendered. He is an official witness and it does not appear as to why he was tendered. PW 6-A is the informant and brother of the deceased. PW 10 has conducted post mortem upon the dead body of the deceased and prepared the post mortem report (Ext. 7). PW 9 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police and has recorded the fard- beyan and occurrence has been investigated into by PW 11. The defence has not examined any witness. 6. The learned trial court after considering the submissions and after analyzing the evidence came to the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under [STATUTE] against Ramadhar Choudhary appellant no. 1 and under [STATUTE] against other three appellants. 7. Now, this Court has to see as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its charge aga

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.