RAMAKANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMAKANT Singh has assailed the judgment of conviction dated 05.02.1991 and order of sentence dated 06.02.1991, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 168/1977/49/1982, arising out of Jandaha P.S. Case No. 33 of 1975, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

(2.) SHORT facts involved in the appeal is with regard to an occurrence of about 38 years earlier on 23.09.1975 at 02.00 P.M. The informant was returning after ploughing his field. His brother P.W. 5 Biju Singh was following after ploughing. When they came near the field of Maheshwar Singh then Ramakant Singh (the appellant) and Mahesh Singh with Farsa, Rajendra Singh, Kusheshwar Singh, Surendra Singh, Maheshwar Singh and Suresh Singh armed with Lathi suddenly came out and started indiscriminately assaulting the informant with Lathi. As a result thereof his head was broken and injury was caused on the left hand. Ramakant Singh gave two Farsa blows upon the informant's head. As a result thereof blood oozed out. The informant was crying for his rescue and in the meanwhile the informant's brother Biju Singh P.W. 5, Harischandra Pd. Singh P.W. 1, Shambhu Singh P.W. 2, Maheshwar Rai P.W. 8 and Uttim Rai P.W. 4 and others came. The informant fell down and was brought to hospital. The motive behind the occurrence was that Shradh of mother of Maheshwar Singh was performed four years ago and this informant and his caste persons were invited but plates were cleared by some persons of Dom caste which was not being tolerated by the informant and his castemen. Ten days earlier in the Shradh of Ramchandra Singh the informant and his castemen were invited but that was refused. The fardbeyan was witnessed by Baleshwar Mahto and Ramanand Gupta. It was recorded at Jandaha State dispensary and on the basis of fardbeyan (Ext. 2), formal FIR was drawn up. In course of investigation one dying declaration (Ext. 4) was recorded. The injured died. The post- mortem report (Ext. 5) was obtained. Statement of the witnesses was recorded, place of occurrence was investigated. The case was found to be true. So chargesheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken. The case was triable by the Court of Sessions so it was committed.

(3.) THE defence was of false implication and also that the manner of occurrence was suppressed and the accused persons were roped in with a false and concocted case.