Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.433 of 1990 =========================================================== 1. Ram Singhashan Singh 2. Shyam Narain Singh both sons of Late Raghunandan Singh. 3. Ram Kewal Singh son of Ram Suresh Singh. 4. Ram Nath Singh son of Ram Singhasan Singh, All residents of village Alawalpur, P.S. Gaurichak, Distt- Patna. .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 492 of 1990 =========================================================== Arun Kumar Singh son of Shyam Narayan Singh, resident of village Alawalpur, P.S. Gaurichak, Distt- Patna .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (DB) No. 433 of 1990) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Prem Nath Singh, Adv. Mr. Ishwari Singh, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kr, Adv. For the State: Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, APP (In CR. APP (DB) No. 492 of 1990) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Prem Nath Singh, Adv. Mr. Ishwari Singh, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kr, Adv. For the State: 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: 13-08-2012 Both these appeals have arising out of the common Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.433 of 1990 dt.13-08-2012 2 judgment of conviction and sentence have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. It is worth mentioning that one of appellants/convict, Yogendra Singh @ Jogia in Cr.Appeal No.433 of 1990 had died during pendency of the appeal and consequently his appeal had abated as recorded in the order dated 20.05.2003. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.09.1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge- XII, Patna in Sessions Trial No.833/87 whereby and whereunder he had held appellant Arun Kumar Singh guilty for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] , 27 of the Arms Act and had also held appellants Arun Singh, Yogendra Singh @ Jogia (since deceased), Ram Singhasan Singh, Shyam Narayan Singh, Ram Nath Singh, Ram Kewal Singh guilty for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] , 27 of the Arms Act. Appellants Shyam Narayan Singh, Ram Nath Singh, Yogendra Singh @ Jogia and Ram Kewal Singh have been additionally held to be guilty for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] . The trial court while passing the order of sentence has directed appellant Arun Kumar Singh to undergo RI for life under [STATUTE] as well as RI for 3 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In likewise manner, appellants, Yogendra Singh @ Jogia (since deceased), Ram Singhasan Singh, Shyam Narayan Singh, Ram Nath Singh, Ram Kewal Singh have been directed to undergo RI for life under [STATUTE] as well as RI for three years under Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.433 of 1990 dt.13-08-2012 3 Section 27 of the Arms Act. Appellants, Yogendra Singh @ Jogia Shyam Narayan Singh, Ram Nath Singh, Ram Kewal have been additionally directed to undergo RI for seven years under [STATUTE] . All the sentences however have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in a nutshell as per Fardbeyan (Ext-3) of Kusheshwar Singh, (PW-11) recorded on 02.05.87 at about 10:30 A.M. at NMCH, Patna alleging inter alia is that on 02.05.87 in between 7:30 to 8:00 A.M. while he along with Sunil Kr. Singh (PW-5), Ravi Shankar (PW-2), Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-6), Kumud Ranjan Singh (PW-7) and Naveen Kr. Singh (deceased) had come near the pond and out of them, Shashi Bhushan and Kumud Ranjan Singh had gone to the place of Rajnandan Mochi (PW-4) after crossing the pond for engaging him as a labour. It is said that in the meantime appellant Ram Nath Singh had arrived there and both sides had entered into verbal duel. Seeing this, the informant and others had proceeded towards that direction and during course thereof, they had seen appellants Arun, Ram Kewal, Yogendra @ Jogia (since deceased), Ram Singhasan, Shyam Narayan armed with rifle and gun arriving over there and appellant Ram Kewal to have fired at Shashi Bhushan and Kumud Ranjan but fortunately, they had escaped the firing and gone towards Chamartoli. The informant claimed that he had forbidden the appellants not to fire and Naveen also joined him in desisting the appellants to indulge in firing. According to the informant the aforesaid request was not heeded by Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.433 of 1990 dt.13-08-2012 4 the accused persons who had fired from their gun but again their fire had missed to hit anyone. The informant claimed that he tried to escape therefrom but on account of firing made by appellant Ram Nath, he had sustained injury over his back. Whereafter Naveen had turned back and had again requested to accused persons not to fire but brushing aside his such request appellant Arun had shot at Naveen from his rifle causing injury in his chest as a result whereof Naveen after covering some distance had fell down. The informant had also alleged that in the midst of such firing on him and Naveen his father also arrived there and when appellant Ram Kewal shot at him (informant) it had hit his father as he (informant) had bent down. The informant had also claimed that thereafter he had run away to save his life and as per the direction of his co-villager, Vijay Kr. Singh (PW-9) and Nathun Singh (not examined), he had gone to hospital. It is also the case of informant that in midst of way to hospital he met his father who had disclosed to him that he (father) was also shot at b

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.