JAGANNATH MISHRA AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Above named Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15th April, 1989 passed in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 1983 by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani whereby these Appellants were found guilty under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Along with these Appellants one Murari Mishra was also tried and he was found guilty for committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act but he was found to be minor aged below 16 years so under the provisions of Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act he was forwarded to the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubnai to pass the order with regard to his sentence.

(2.) The occurrence of about 11.00 A.M. on 23.12.1981 led to killing of Raghu Jha and on the basis of fard-beyan (Ext. 3) of the informant Faudar Yadav (PW 3), initially the First Information Report was registered under Sections 307, 326 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(A), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act because Raghu Jha was injured but during treatment he died on the same day and then Section 302 IPC was added.

(3.) The Chowkidar 9/2 Faudar Yadav has given his fard-beyan that he along with another Chowkidar Rameshwar Mandal were deputed at the disputed field of Krishna Kant Khan (PW 10) and Jagannath Mishra (Appellant No. 1) to keep watch over the standing crops. Paddy and Khesari crops were grown over the disputed field. On 29.12.1981 at 11.00 AM Krishna Kant Khan (PW 10), Raghu Jha (deceased), Chandra Kant Khan (PW 8), Madan Khan (not examined) and Hari Mohan Khan (PW 9) on one side and Jagannath Mishra (Appellant No. 1), Bhola Mukhia (Appellant No. 2) and Murari Mishra on the other side along with several labourers went to the field for harvesting the standing paddy crops. PW 3 and another Chowkidar Rameshwar Mandal (PW 4) requested them against harvesting but despite their insistence against harvesting both sides started harvesting through labourers. Seeing this, PW 3 rushed to Hanuman Nagar where the members of armed forces were kept on deputation. The informant ultimately informed them but the Armed Forces refused to proceed to the disputed land due to non-availability of the Magistrate. PW 3 then came back to the disputed land and sent PW 4 (another Chowkidar) to Sarsopahi Out Post to give the information. In the meanwhile both sides completed the harvesting. When division of the harvested paddy crops was being started then Appellant No. 1 Jaggannath Mishra and others claimed half of the harvested crops but Krishna Kant Khan (PW 10) and others were not agree to that extent and they stated that at best the Appellant No. 1 and others should keep 1/4th share in the harvested crops. A long altercation ensued but no amicable settlement could be arrived. Both sides started carrying the harvested paddy crops bundles to their respective places through their labourers. In the meanwhile Jagannath Mishra (Appellant No. 1) armed with lathi, Murari Mishra armed with country made gun and Bhola Mukhia (Appellant No. 2) having Farasa came from the direction of their house. Seeing them, Krishna Kant Khan (PW 10), Madan Khan (not examined), Raghu Jha (deceased), Chandrakant Khan (PW 8), Hari Mohan Khan (PW 9) and their labourers started running for their safety. Jagannath Mishra, Murari Mishra and others reached at the field. Murari Mishra fired one shot which caused injury in the stomach of Raghu Jha who initially ran out to the field of Deo Kant Chauhdary but due to sustaining injury of firearm he fell down and become unconscious. He was taken to Manigachi for treatment and the informant gave his fard-beyan (Ext. 3) to S.I. Janak Mishra (PW 13) at Bhaur Tole Hanuman Nagar and formal FIR (Ext. 9) was drawn. The case was investigated into. Inquest report (Ext. 7) was prepared, blood was seized and seizure list (Ext. 4) was prepared. Exhibit 4 contains the signatures of the witnesses which have been duly marked as Exhibit 1 and 1/1. The post mortem examination report (Ext. 2) was received, statement of witnesses were taken under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and after investigation the case was found to be true under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, Chargesheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charges under Sections 302/34 IPC and 302/120B IPC were framed against these two Appellants and against Murari Mishra charge under Section 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act was framed. The charges were explained to the Appellants to which they not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.