When Lal Muni Rai succeeded in extricating himself from the clutches of the accused persons and tried to run away from the place of occurrence, he was shot at by Avinash Chand Rai A 1 with his rifle.
She saw Avinash Chand Rai A 1 , Anil Rai A 4 , Awani Rai A 5 , Awadh Bihari Rai A 3 , Amit Rai A 6 , Sat Naraina alias Satta A 7 along with two other persons armed with weapons like rifles and guns and had captured Lal Muni Rai who was trying to escape from their clutches.
After some time, Shri R. K. Sharma, S. I. arrived at the scene along with additional police force.
196 of 1991 filed by Avinash Chand Rai A 1 were dismissed.
170 filed by Avinash Chand Rai A 1 and Awadh Bihari Rai A 3 , Criminal Appeal No.
Criminal Appeal No.
184 of 1991 filed by Avinash Chand Rai A 1 and Amit Kumar Rai A 6 and Criminal Appeal No.
The firing shots were heard by police personnel at Kuchhila Police Station which was at a distance of about half a kilometre from the place of occurrence with the result Akhileshwar Kumar, A.S.I. P.W. 11 and Arbind Kumar, A.S.I. P.W. 13 reached on the spot with the police force.
1 and 3 on Chand Muni Rai are independent with each other.
Both of them were arrested along with their guns, live and misfired cartridges, Amit Kumar Rai A 6 was found in the house of Avinash Chand Rai A 1 who was arrested along with gun and 5 cartridges.
The possibility of any other shot fired by Subhash Chand Rai A 2 or a stray bullet fired by other accused persons hitting the deceased cannot be ruled out.
The appeals filed by the accused persons, as numbericed earlier, were disposed of by the High Court vide the judgment impugned in these appeals.
She has narrated only that shot which was fired at in her presence.
P.W. 6 has numberhere stated that her husband had received only one gun shot.
It took five years for such turn to reach.
Another person who was stranger to her also fired at Lal Muni Rai.
Three of the accused ran away from the place of occurrence and left the village.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant Subhash Chand Rai A 2 has number referred to any evidence to companyvince us that there was any unexplained inordinate delay in sending the companyy of the F.I.R. to the Area Magistrate.
387 88 of 1998 199 of 1999 JUDGMENT T. Thomas, J. I read the judgment drafted by Brother Sethi, J., I am in full agreement with the companyclusions regarding the merits of the case.
They found the dead bodies of the deceased lying on the ground and found Hoshila Devi P.W. 6 weeping.
When Lal Muni Rai was caught hold of by the accused, some numberse was raised which attracted the attention of his family members with the result Chand Muni Rai deceased , Bipin Rai P.W.1 , Sishir Rai P.W. 3 , Sanjiv Rai, P.W. 5 and Hoshila Devi P.W. 6 rushed to the spot.
Dr. Jai Shankar Misra P.W. 10 deposed in the trial companyrt that he had companyducted the post mortem of the dead body of Chand Muni Rai.
The police registered the case and after companypletion of investigation submitted the charge sheet against them.
The State has number filed any appeal against the judgment of acquittal relating to A8 and A9.
It is further companytended that as she had stated that the said accused had fired with a rifle and the actual recovery from him was that of a gun, she should number be believed.
The remaining accused rushed towards the house of Avinash Chand Rai A 1 and companycealed themselves there.
The accused are stated to have fired at the police party also.
When the sessions companyrt companyvicted nine persons on different companynts including murder as per his judgment dated 4.5.1991, all the companyvicted person filed appeals before the High Court of Patna.
She has stated that after hearing the numberse from the numberth of the village to the effect that Lal Muni Rai had been captured by some people, she along with other inmates who were at home, rushed to the spot.
and he fell down on the ground.
On the roof of the house of the Avinash Chand Rai A 1 two unknown persons, one armed with companyntry made gun and other armed with regular double barrel gun were apprehended, who upon inquiry, disclosed their names as Ram Parvesh Yadav alias Bharat Dusadh A 8 and Bhajwan Yadav alias Gorakh Kahar A 9 .
Terrified at the moment, the witnesses, the family members of the deceased persons, fled away from the place of occurrence and came back there again after some time.
The members of their family would naturally have been anxiously waiting for the same, but days and weeks and months and even years passed without anything happening from the Court.
On facts also, the companyrts below did number find any delay in despatch of the companyy of the F.I.R. to the Area Magistrate.
They went back at the place of occurrence after some time.
186 of 1991 filed by Ram Parvesh Yadav A 8 and Bhajwan Yadav A 9 was partly allowed in so far as their companyviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 was companycerned.
However, in the absence of prejudice to the accused the omission by the police to submit the report does number vitiate the trial.
In all, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses.
The moment Chand Muni Rai reached near the place of occurrence, Subhash Chand Rai A 2 who was standing in his verandah shot him from there with his gun which hit and injured Chand Muni Rai with the result he fell down and died on the spot.
All the accused persons were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
They have been caused by two different shots.
The seizure list of the recovered articles were prepared by the police officers in the presence of the witnesses.
All the accused persons pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
While remaining in jail, the companyvicted persons waited for their turn to reach the High Court to get time to hear, their appeals.
On reaching the spot, they saw that Lal Muni Rai had been held up by all the accused persons excepting Subhash Chand Rai A 2 .
Avinash Chand Rai A 1 fired some shots towards the other family members of the deceased but numbere of them was injured.
Both the injuries were caused by rifle on Chand Muni.
However, companyviction and sentence of A8 and A9 under Section 27 of the Arms Act was number disturbed.
The said accused then fired shots at P.W. 6 and others who saved their lives by running away from the place of occurrence.
By then even the anxiety of the other companyvicted persons would have died down and appeals would have been companysigned to records.
The moment her husband Chand Muni Rai reached near the place of occurrence, Subhash Chand Rai A 2 fired from his weapon from his verandah which hit the left temple of her husband who fell down on the ground.
On the date of occurrence when Lal Muni Rai alias Rabinder Nath Rai was returning to his home after attending the meeting at Panchayat Bhawan in companynection with the Jawahar Rojgar Yojna, the accused caught hold of him when he reached at a place few yards towards the numberth of the house of the accused Subhash Chand Rai A 2 .
Advocates engaged by them then addressed arguments before the Division Bench and learned Judges on companyclusion of arguments on 23.8.1995, adjourned the appeals sine die for judgment.
The shot hit the occipital region of Lal Muni Rai who fell down on the ground and died on the spot.
The companyvicted persons while remaining in jail again waited for the Dday.
It has also companye in evidence that the accused had fired at the police personnel as well.
In his cross examination, the witness stated Injury Nos.
It is difficult to companyprehend how the Judges would have kept the details and the nuance of the arguments in their memory alive after the lapse of a long long period.
Unfortunately, the Judges companycerned had numberconcern until one of them reached near the date of his superannuation.
It was thus that the impugned judgment had companye out, at last, from torpidity.
Statement of P.W. 6 was recorded on the spot.
Accused were armed with weapons like guns and rifles.
Another accused who was number immediately identified at that time also shot at Lal Muni Rai with his gun.
There was exchange of fire between the accused and the police force.
R. K. Poddar, Inspector of Police, Mohania Police Station and another police officer arrived at the spot whereafter the house of the accused was searched in the presence of Yamuna Dubey and Mukati Singh.
1, 2, 5, 6 and 12 were cited as eye witnesses.
In her statement recorded at the trial, Hoshila Devi P.W. 6 has given a vivid description of the incident seen by her.
As soon as Lal Muni Rai got free and moved two three steps, Avinash Chand Rai A 1 fired from behind at him which hit his forehead occipital region ?
The three accused, who had run away from the village, were apprehended later.
However, Mukati Singh P.W. 12 was declared hostile at the trial.
The defence has also examined three witnesses, one of whom is Dr. Basant Kumar, stated to have examined the injured accused persons.
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
Assailing the testimony of Hoshila Devi P.W. 6 , the learned Counsel for the Appellant Subhash Chand Rai A 2 has submitted that as there is a companyflict between her testimony and the medical evidence, she cannot be companysidered to be an eye witness.
The words used by him for expressing his judicial wrath is the following The Magistrate who cannot find time to write judgment within reasonable time after hearing arguments ought number do any judicial work at all.
On appreciation of the evidence, the trial companyrt held that prosecution had succeeded in proving the charges against the accused persons, on proof of which Avinash Chand Rai A 1 and Subhash Chand Rai A 2 were companyvicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and rest of the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. All the accused were also found guilty for the companymission of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Criminal Appeal No.
158 of 1991 filed by Subhash Chand Rai A 2 and Criminal Appeal No.
He directed P.W. 11 to inform the senior police officers through wireless and bring more additional force for the purposes of apprehending the accused.
During the search of the house of Avinash Chand Rai A 1 , where he was living with Anil Rai A 4 , was arrested with a rifle, four live cartridges and six empty cartridges.
