- (1.) The present appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction dated 11-8-98 and order of sentence dated 13-8-98 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 134/97 whereby both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for their conviction under Section 307/149 I.P.C., one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C., two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 440 I.P.C. The appellant Arun Kumar Singh was further sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for his conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently with the set off of the period of detention undergone by them.
(2.) The prosecution story lies in a narrow compass. The informant Ajay Kumar Chourasia (P.W. 7) delivered his statement (Ext. 2) that on 19-1-97 at about 6.30 p.m. while he was sitting with his brother Krishna Chourasia (P.W. 10) and his staff Jai Mangal Singh (not examined) in his shop M/s Ajay Electronics and that his younger brother Chanchal Chourasia (P.W. 3) with his staff Bablu and Deepak was sitting in his own ready made garments shop in the name and style M/s. Zuno garments, the appellants namely Arun Kumar Singh, Chotu alias Chotua (Binod Kumar Sinha) and one Shailendra Singh (since deceased) along with 3/4 other miscreants arrived there, variously armed with hockey sticks, Bhujali and country made pistol and entered into Ajay Electronics. Narrating the specific attribution the informant stated that the accused Sailendra Singh smashed the glass door with Bhujali of the shop M/s. Ajay Electronics. The appellant Arun Kumar Singh having country made pistol in his hand caught hold Krishna Chourasia, abused him and threatened as to why his brother had lodged a case against him. In the same transaction, the informant added that the appellant Arun Kumar Singh fired shot at his brother Krishna Chourasia from his pistol from point blank range. Hearing the sound of firing and the alarm raised by the informant, witnesses assembled there including his younger brother Chanchal Chourasia (P.W. 3) and his staff Bablu (P.W. 1) and Deepak whereupon all the accused escaped. The occurrence was witnessed by a number of persons who assembled there. Disclosing the genesis, the informant alleged that the appellants and other accused used to demand extortion tax (Rangdari) which was objected to by the informant and his brothers. On 18-1-1997 i.e. a day prior to the alleged occurrence also the accused person including the appellants had demanded Rangdari in relation to which a police case was registered and in sequel to that the accused persons had come again on 19-1-97 and had given effect to the occurrence.
(3.) Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned Counsel for the appellants by his common argument in both the appeals submitted that the occurrence did not take place in the manner presented by the prosecution. The prosecution had examined altogether 11 witnesses before the trial Court. The specific defence of the appellants was that there held scuffle between P.W. 3 Chanchal Chourasia P.W. 7 Ajay Chourasia and P.W. 10 Krishna Chourasia as the first party and Sailendra Singh as second party and in such scuffle Sailendra Singh was beaten to death. For such occurrence a separate case was instituted and to screen the culprits who are the witnesses, the present case was brought about on the statement of Ajay Chourasia (P.W 7).;