Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 464 of 1991. Case: Hansraj Ram Vs The State of Bihar. High Court of Patna (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 464 of 1991 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: N.A. Shamsi, Advocate and For Respondents: Dilip Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. |
| Judges | A.K. Lal and Dharnidhar Jha, JJ. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 302, 34 |
| Judgement Date | September 04, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Patna (India) |
Judgment:
A.K. Lal, J.
1. Both the appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.9.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah, in Sessions Trial no. 167 of 1990 by which they have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.1.1989 at about 1 P.M. the informant Bishwanath Yadav (P.W.8) was trying to irrigate his field near the Harijan Toli. In the meantime, Radha Krishna Yadav (deceased) was going towards the southern side of the Harijan Toli by bicycle. All of a sudden noise of firing was heard in front of the house of Chhangur Chamar. The informant rushed there and saw that both the appellants, namely, Hansraj Chamar @ Khajanchi and Sharda Chamar were making firing at Radha Krishna Yadav, who became injured and fell down from the bicycle and entered into the house of Dhorha Chamar. Both the appellants also entered into the same house and shot several fires. The informant rushed there raising alarm by that time the appellants escaped by riding on a motor-cycle. At the time of escaping Hansraj Chamar @ Khajanchi set fire in the house of Chhangur Chamar. The informant and others saw that Radha Krishna Yadav was in a pool of blood and succumbed to his injuries. Due to the flame of fire the dead body was carried on a cot to the Khalihan in the northern side of the village. The reason for killing is that the appellants were under the impression that the deceased caused the death of their brother Kedar Chamar. It has been claimed that both the appellants have killed the deceased by their licencee gun. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 5 P.M. on 26.1.1989 at village Sujnahi Ghorahwa in the khalihan by Haripad Manjhi, Junior Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.9). Piprasi P.S. Case no. 1 of 1989 was instituted against both the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation chargesheet was submitted and cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed against both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both of them denied charges and claimed to be tried.
3. The defence is that they are innocent and they have taken plea of alibi that they were present at the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Giridih, on the date of occurrence and both the brothers were operated for vasectomy. It has also been suggested that the deceased had criminal antecedent and the murder took place in some other way not as alleged by the prosecution. After trial both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses, out of them P.W.1 Mohan Yadav, P.W.3 Hare Krishna Yadav, P.W.4 Bhola Yadav are hearsay witnesses. P.W.2 Sukai Harijan, P.W.5 Ramashray Yadav are formal witnesses. P.W.6 is Rajesh Kumar, who has been tendered. P.W.7 Dr. Shahdeo Singh has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Radha Krishna Yadav. P.W.8 Bishwanath Yadav is the informant. P.W.9 Haripad Manjhi is a formal witness, P.W.10 Arun Kumar Jha is the investigating officer and P.W.11 Gopal Prasad is also a formal witness. He has further submitted that P.W. 8 has stated that both the appellants had fled away on a motor-cycle, whereas, P.W.6 has stated in paragraph-6 that the accused persons were never in possession of any motor-cycle. He has never seen any motor-cycle after the occurrence. P.W.8 has stated that it was a gun used for firing but the doctor has found the injuries caused by rifle.
5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that P.Ws. 2 and 8 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they have supported the prosecution case. Shri Arun Kumar Jha, investigating officer (P.W.10) and Shri Haripad Manjhi (P.W.9) have investigated the case and found the case true. The ocular evidence stands corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.7.
6. In view of rival contention, this Court is required to reappraise the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties.
7. Bishwanath Yadav (P.W.8) is the informant of the case. He has stated that on the date and time of occurrence he was in the field. He heard the noise of firings and rushed to the place from where the sound...
To continue reading
Request your trial