Case: Shital Singh &amp; Others Vs. State of Bihar

2. The relationship between the deceased and the appellants and some of the witnesses is shown in the following pedigree table :BIBAL SINGH|BALDEO| |Hardhar Singh Mathura Singh Surajdeo Singh|| |Sheo Singh (P.W. 3) (Injured) Sheonandan Singh (Deceased) || || | | |Gorakh Singh Bindeshwari Singh Rajeshwari Debi Shankar Singh(P.W.2) (Appellant No. 4) (P.W. 4) (Deceased)(Injured)Shital Singh (Appellant|Bachulal Singh Harbans Singh(Appellant No. 3) (Appellant No.case of the prosecution is as follows : At 4.30 p.m. on June, 2, 1964, while Sheonandan Singh (deceased) was sitting at his Darwaza in village, Moberakpur Police Station Marhaura, District saran, along with his brother Sheo Singh (P.W. 3) and son shankar singh(deceased), and was talking with his cousin, appellant Shital Singh, regarding his share to the north of the well situated in the Saran, the talk took a serious turn and there was exchange of hot words. Then appellant Shital Singh went to his Dalan and returned with the accused persons along with him. Appellant Shital Singh was armed with Bhala, appellants Bachulal Singh and Harbans Singh were armed with Pharsas and appellant Bindeshwari Singh was armed with a Lathi. Shital Singh assaulted Sheonandan Singh with his Bhala in his abdomen, as a result of which his intestines came out. Appellant Bachulal Singh assaulted Sheonandan Singh with his Pharsa on his hands. Appellant Harbans Singh assaulted him with his Pharsa on his right elbow. Appellant Bindeshwari Singh again caught hold of Sheonandan Singh when appellant Harbans Singh against assaulted him with the Pas (socket) of his Pharsa on his head. When Sheo Singh (P.W. 3) and Shanker Singh (deceased) and Gorakh Singh inflicted a cut injury on Shankar Singh with his Pharsa on the left side of his neck and also a cut injury on his chest. Appellant Shital Singh assaulted P.W. 3 with his Bhala. Appellant Harbans Singh assaulted him with his Pharsa, appellant Bachulal Singh assaulted him with his Pharsa and appellant Bindeshwari Singh assaulted him with his Lathi. The appellant also assaulted P.W. 3 with their respective weapons. On hearing Hulla villagers including Kali Charan Singh (P.W. 5) and others came to the place of occurrence and saw the occurrence. Then the accused persons dragged Sheonandan Singh to the Dalan of Shital Singh. Rajeshwari Debi (P.W. 4) also went to that Dalan and asked the accused persons to spare the life of Sheonandan Singh. But they did not listen to her requests and all of them assaulted Sheonandan Singh, again in the Dalan. P.W. 4 was also assaulted by appellants Shital, Bachulal Singh. Harbans Singh and Bindeshwari Singh with their respective weapons.5. The High Court relied on the oral evidence and the dying declaration of Sheonandan Singh, deceased.

Court's reasoning:
3. The case of the prosecution has been accepted by the High Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and as there are concurrent findings we do not ordinarily interfere with such findings.are unable to appreciate his argument. The previous history of the dispute is a neural factor and cannot displace the oral evidence relied on by the High Court.We are unable to see any force in this contention. If the story urged by him is correct, we would not find so much blood nearabout the well, as deposed by the investigating officer. As regards the trails of blood the argument presupposes that blood also fell when the deceased was being carried out and that he was carried out on a different route. There is no evidence to substantiate these points.There is nothis so according to the prosecution two persons were injured in the Dalan but we are unable to infer from the presence of blood marks that a fight took placeare unable to appreciate how this fact assists the defence.It equally fits the prosecutions case because after having assaulted the complainants side the accused left the weapons there. It has not been proved that these weapons belonged to the complainantsthere is no evidence that these pieces of bone were human because the doctor, when questioned, said that he could not say that these bones wereoof that these finger stains were the stains left by the complainants side.This conduct, according to the learned counsel, supports thedefence, we are unable to see any force in this contention.It seems to us that this is no explanationmedical evidence does not support it. We looked into the evidence and it seems to us that the word "dragged" has been incorrectly used. What the witnesses meant to convey was "catching and pushing", in order words he was caught hold of and forcibly taken into the Dalan.18. Accordingly we are of the opinion that nothing has been shown to us which will enable us to upset the concurrent findings of the High Court and the learned Sessions judge.