Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ***** Criminal Appeal (DB) No.377 of 2000 Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21st of July, 2000 passed by Shri S.M.A. Imam, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 1989/340 of 2000. =========================================================== 1. Kapileshwar Sah, son of Manraj Sah 2. Manraj Sah, Son of Late Biltu Sah Both residents of Village – Jagdishpur, P.S. – Pusa, District – Samastipur. .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 384 of 2000 =========================================================== Sone Lal Sah, Son of Late Mannu Sah, residents of Village – Jagdishpur, P.S. – Pusa, District – Samastipur. .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (DB) No. 377 of 2000) (In CR. APP (DB) No. 384 of 2000) For the Appellants : Mr. S.N.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jitendra Narain Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Shikha Roy, Advocate (in both the appeals) For the Respondent : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP (in both the appeals) =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 13-09-2012 Kapileshwar Sah and his father Manraj Sah (the appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 377 of 2000) and Sone Lal Sah (the appellant of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 384 of 2000) Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.377 of 2000 dt.13-09-2012 2 have impugned the judgment and order dated 21.07.2000, passed in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 1989 / 340 of 2000 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, whereby all the appellants have been convicted for the offence under [STATUTE] and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for life. 2. Unfortunately, the fardbeyan is not on the record. But materials available, the charge sheet and another documents are being relied upon to reproduce the prosecution case which has supported on the basis of fardbeyan of Asharfi Devi, wife of deceased Chaturbhuj Sah (deceased of the case). It has been alleged that Chaturbhuj Sah had been to the house of Asheshar Mahto where there was commotion going on between Kapileshwar Sah and Sonelal Sah. Chaturbhuj Sah (the deceased) with Dilip Sah, Devan Sah and Raj Narain Sah were there, further the villagers Jugeshwar Mahto, Ganaur, Manraj Sah, Kapileshwar Sah and Ram Sewak Mahto were also there. The informant and her daughter reached there on hulla and saw Kapileshwar Sah and Sonelal Sah struck a Lathi blow upon the head of the informant’s husband. The informant’s husband fell down on account of impact of the assault. Devan Sah and Dilip Sah brought the informant’s husband to his house where the doctor was called in the night on 21.03.1982. In the next morning, the victim was carried to Pusa Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.377 of 2000 dt.13-09-2012 3 Hospital but he died. On the basis of fardbeyan, Tajpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 1982 was instituted against the appellants and others under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the place of occurrence on 14.02.1986. 3. After cognizance the case was committed to the court of Sessions where charge under [STATUTE] was explained to the accused and they pleaded innocence then the trial proceeded. 4. The defence of the accused persons was of false implication. 5. The prosecution examined twelve prosecution witnesses they are Devan Sah P.W. 1, Dilip Kumar Sah P.W. 2, Raj Narain Singh P.W. 3, Baleshwar Sah P.W. 4, Ram Phal Sah P.W. 5, Most. Ashrafi Devi P.W. 6, Bibha Devi P.W. 7, Rajeshwar Pd. Sinha P.W. 8, Dhrub Narain Lal P.W. 9, Shri Krishna Sharma P.W. 10, Rati Kant Pathak P.W. 11 and Karm Narain Rai P.W. 12. The post-mortem report was exhibited as (Ext. 1), formal FIR as (Ext. 2), Letter dated 07.10.1985 as (Ext. 3) and inquest report as (Ext. 4). On the other hand the defence has examined Rabindra Thakur as D.W. 1, Ram Sagar Sharma as D.W. 2, Dinesh Mahto as D.W. 3, Dashrath Singh as D.W. 4, Bijay Kumar as D.W. 5 and Mahendra Mahto as D.W. 6 and has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.377 of 2000 dt.13-09-2012 4 exhibited Panchnama written by Premlal Mahto as (Ext. A), FIR as (Ext. B), endorsement in the writing and signature over the written report Ext. B which is marked as (Ext. B/1), formal FIR (Ext. C), Signature of Dinesh Mahto and five others on Panchnama is (Ext. D to D/5), signature on water selling register (Ext. E), signature on water selling register (Ext. F) and Jamabandi register (Ext. G). 6. The trial court after considering the evidence has found that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. 7. This Court has to see as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts or not. 8. The death of Chaturbhuj Sah has been sought to be proved by the inquest report (Ext. 4) and post-mortem report (Ext. 1). Ext. 1 which has been brought on record is Xerox copy of the post-mortem. From the post-mortem report it cannot be said that as to whose post-mortem was that. The initial version of the post-mortem report mentions the name of the deceased, age, parentage and his identification but that is not here. The post- mortem report which has been brought on record does not Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.377 of 2000 dt.13-09-2012 5 describe the deceased. However, through the post-mortem report it has not come that the deceased whose post-mortem has been exhibited and who had died on account of hard and blunt substance. 9. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are material witnesses. P.Ws. 5 and 7 have been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 8 has formally proved the post-mortem report. P.W. 9 Dhrub Narain Lal ha

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.