The injured Ashok Singh was brought on a company to Vikram Government Hospital and was declared dead.
Hearing the sound of shots, according to the prosecution, witnesses Kedar Singh W. 1 and Lal Bahadur Singh P.W. 3 came there and seeing them all the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence.
in Vikram Government Hospital, Patna.
477 of 1999, where by the companyviction of the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No.
P.W. 5 Dr. Pramod Kumar Jha held the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.
However, the appeal preferred by the appellant herein was partly allowed and while maintaining his companyviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, his companyviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act set aside.
While the informant was returning from the police station along with his brother Ashok Singh deceased and reached in front of the house of said Bali Ram Singh all the accused including the appellant herein surrounded the deceased and the present appellant is alleged to have exhorted to shoot them dead whereupon accused Bali Ram Singh fired from his pistol causing injury to the deceased Ashok Singh.
This appeal arises from an order dated 26th August, 2003, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No.
A. No 721 of 2004 which was adjacent to the house of accused Bali Ram Singh.
The trial companyrt on appraisal of the evidence came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and, accordingly, held the appelalnt guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
549 of 1996 by order dated 4th October, 1999, has been upheld.
A. No 721 of 2004 examined six witnesses out of which P.W. 1 Kedar Singh, W. 2 Shivendra Singh and P.W. 3 Lal Bahadur Singh claimed to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence.
Prosecution in order to bring home the charge altogether Crl.
Aggrieved by their companyviction and sentence all the aforesaid accused persons preferred separate appeals.
The appellant denied to have companymitted the offence, and claimed to be tried.
The police after usual investigation submitted the charge sheet and the appellant was charged for companymission of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution companymenced on the basis of a report given by informant Ramjee Singh P.W. 4 before the Sub Inspector of Police on 9th August, 1985 at 915p.m.
In the examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant besides pleading false implication has also pleaded alibi asserting that at the time of occurrence he was on duty as a night guard in the Commercial Taxes Office at Barh and in order to prove the same examined four witnesses.
All the appeals were taken up for companysideration by the High Crl.
According to the First Information Report, four years prior to the occurrence, the informant had purchased a house from one Ramanand Mistri Crl.
A. No 721 of 2004 Court together and by companymon judgment dated 26th August, 2003, the appeal preferred by Ram Anuj Singh was allowed and he was acquitted of all the charges.
Besides, the appellant, two other persons namely, Bali Ram Singh and Ram Anuj Singh were also held guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is against the companyviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code that the appellant has preferred this appeal by leave of the Court.
The prosecution has alleged that the said accused Bali Ram Singh had demolished the wall of the purchased house and on 9th August, 1995, he had gone to the Rani Talab Police Station to lodge the report.
