- (1.) BY Court: Both the aforesaid appeals i.e. Cr. A (DB) No. 184 of 1993 filed by appellant Bachni Singh @ Kaku and Cr. A. (DB) No. 190 of 1993 filed by Ashish Ram arose from the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.09.1993 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in ST. No. 285 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the appellants Bachni Singh had been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC whereas the appellant Ashish Ram has been convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC and both are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Since both the appeals arose from the common judgment of the court below, therefore, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE case of prosecution in short is that on 12.3.1990 at about 5.30 p.m. the informant's son Kuldip Thakur @ Vijay had gone out side of house along with Manoj, Sanjay Horo and Muneshwar. It is further stated that at about 5.45 p.m., Jitendra Singh @ Loha Singh came and inform that Kuldip was stabbed and killed by some person. It is stated that when the informant asked Loha Singh as to who had killed him, he replied that he could not see the assailants. Thereafter the informant immediately rushed near the house of Loha Singh and saw that his son Kuldip Thakur @ Vijay was lying dead. He also found injuries on the abdomen, chest and ribs (panjara) of deceased caused by sharp cutting weapon. It is further stated by the informant that he made query from different persons but none had disclosed as to who had killed his son. It is further stated that his daughter -in -law disclosed that the deceased had some quarrel with Bachni Singh in connection with non payment of price of wine. It is further stated that on 11.3.1990 Bachni Singh had stated to the informant that he will kill Kuldip because he quarreled with him. Accordingly, informant suspects that because of the aforesaid reason, seven unknown persons had killed Kuldip by causing injury with sharp cutting weapon. On the basis of aforesaid statement, police instituted Patratu P.S. Case No. 46 of 1990 dated 13.3.1990 under Section 302/34 of the IPC and took up investigation. It appears that after completing investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant along with four others, namely, Mahendra Vishwakarma, Sikendar Dome, Lakhan Lal and Kanhaiya Lal. It further appears that the court below had framed charge against the appellants and other four co accused under Section 302/34 of the IPC and explained the same to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution had also brought on record Ext - 1 signature of witness on the fardbeyan, Ext. -2 the Fardbeyan, Ext. - 3 and 3/1 the signature of witnesses on their statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, Ext. - 4 the Post Mortem Report, Ext. -5 Fard beyan, Ext. - 6 the FIR, Ext. -7 the inquest report, Ext. - 8 the seizure list, Ext. - 9 and 9/1 statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and Ext. - 3/2 and 3/3 the signature of witnesses on the inquest report. It appears that after the close of the case of prosecution, the statement of all accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which their defence is of total denial.
(3.) AFTER considering the evidence available on record, the court below, by the impugned judgment, acquitted co -accused Mahendra Vishwakarma, Sikendar Dome, Lakhan Lal and Kanhaiya Lal from the charge leveled against them. However, the learned court below convicted the appellant Bachni Singh for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and appellant Ashish Ram under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.;