- (1.) Criminal appeal No.77 of 2007 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.11.2006 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 405 of 1998, arising out of Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No. 175 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2657 of 1996 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act, however, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. AND Criminal appeal Nos.288, 299, 262, 273, 303 & 320 of 1998 have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.8.1998 & 31.8.1998 respectively passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 1997, arising out of Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No. 175 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2657 of 1996 whereby all the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life whereas appellant Mantu Das and Paiki Ramm @ Poki Ramm have further been held guilty under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years, one of the convict Mustak Khan, who has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years, has not preferred any appeal before this Court. Since all the appeals referred to above arise out of a common F.I.R. i.e. Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No.175 of 1996, lodged on 06.09.1996 at 20.30 hours by the informant Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha, this common judgment shall be applicable. We are aware of the fact and the law that evidence adduced in two separate sessions trial followed by two separate judgments shall require to be discussed and appreciated according to the evidence available against appellants in their respective sessions trial and that principle will be followed in this judgment. The common witnesses in the aforesaid two sessions trial are Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (informant), Mithilesh Kumar, Arvind Kumar, Ghanshyam Pandey, Parmeshwar Mahto and Dr. D.K. Dhiraj out of whom the informant Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha, Mithilesh Kumar, Arvind Kumar and Dr. D.K. Dhiraj are material witnesses. The Investigating Officer Jagdish Prasad was not examined in S.T. No.405 of 1998 in which Md. Yaqub Ansari @ Md. Ayub Ansari is appellant.
(2.) Since the material witnesses are common in both the Sessions trial, we would like to bring on record the gist of the prosecution case adduced by them. According to fardbeyan Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (informant) along with his brother Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) was going to Rajganj from Kumar Medical Hall, situated within combined building, Dhanbad on his motorcycle bearing registration No. BR 17C 4288 on 06.09.1996. At about 8 p.m. when they reached near Sant Nirankari Chowk, they saw a scooter and a motorcycle Kawasaki parked at the side of the road and the persons standing near the place signaled them to stop. The informant accordingly followed the instructions and after being stopped at the place, identified the appellants namely Md. Yaqub Ansari, Dhiren Mahto, Gulam Sarbar, Mantu Das, Asgar Mian and Paiki Ramm in the vapor light affixed on the Nirankari Bhawan. The informant then inquired the reason for their stay at the place but till then appellants Yaqub Ansari, Dhiren Mahto took out pistol from their waist, pointed it towards them and asked, as to why they are disturbing their partner Binod in running the institute. They threatened them to remain away from the institute and failing to obey the instructions they will have to face the consequences. It is disclosed that Sant Kumar Sinha, (deceased) then got down from the motorcycle and told that how they are related with the running of the institute and what interest they have. Thereafter exchange of hot words took between them. It is alleged that appellant Asgar, by hurling blow by means of a knife told his companion to do the task for which they have come. Simultaneously the appellant Yaqub opened fire from a point blank range on the left side of the neck of Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) after which he fell down. The informant, apprehending danger, ran away from the place after which a shot was fired from behind but it did not hit him. At the time of running away from the place he had seen appellant Dhiren Mahto and Asgar Mian fleeing on scooter No. BR 17B 4455, appellants Yaqub and Gulam Sarbar on Kawasaki motorcycle No. DEV 2626 towards Dhanbad and appellants Mantu Das and Paiki Ramm towards south on the motorcycle left by the informant. In course of fleeing the informant met with the police patrolling party to whom he disclosed about the incident and returned back to the place of occurrence along with them on the police jeep. They found Sant Kumar lying dead at the place of occurrence situated near Nirankari Bhawan. The informant raised allegation that appellant Binod Kumar hatched out a conspiracy, hired criminals and committed murder of Sant Kumar Sinha.
(3.) On the basis of fardbeyan of Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha a case under Section 302/120B and 379 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellants was registered and accordingly, investigation proceeded. During investigation stolen motorcycle was recovered from the house of Mustak Khan @ Chanda Khan and he was also made accused in addition to the accused named in the F.I.R. At the conclusion of the investigation all the accused persons were chargesheeted showing appellant Yaqub @ Ayub as an absconder in red ink in column-2 of the chargesheet. All the apprehended seven accused were put on trial vide S.T. No.112 of 1997 whereas appellant Yaqub Ansari @ Ayub Ansari who was apprehended later, was put on trial vide S.T. No.405 of 1998.;