Criminal Appeal Nos.
Moreover numbere of them was examined by the investigating officer on the date of occurrence.
They were armed with rifles, guns and other weapons.
All the respondents except Deva and Lakhandeo were also found guilty of the offence under Sections 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Respondents Deva and Lakhandeo were sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC.
It was further submitted on behalf of the defence that all the alleged eye witnesses belonged to the same caste, namely the caste of Mukhiya Keshari Nandan.
4, 7 and 11 were tendered for cross examination at the trial.
Respondents 2 to 13 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and were also sentenced to imprisonment for life.
318 of 1988 preferred by the remaining eleven accused.
57/86 8/86.
He alongwith Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, who had reached the place of occurrence by then rushed to the dalan of respondent Naresh Yadav and found that the roof of the dalan had been set on fire.
In view of the difference of opinion the matter was placed before D.P Sinha, J. in view of the provisions of Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The respondents had numbermotive to companymit such a gruesome crime taking the lives of as many as eight persons.
At about that time two political leaders one a Member of the Rajya Sabha and the other a Member of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the same caste as the deceased Keshari Nandan Singh came and pacified the mob.
PW 12 Tufail Ahmad officer incharge Ghosi police station who had reached the place of occurrence at about 7.20 a.m. investigated the case and ultimately submitted the charge sheet against 13 respondents herein.
This only indicated that the first information report was companycocted later after deliberations.
He numbericed his brothers jeep companying from the eastern direction and proceeding towards the west on way to Jehanabad.
After reaching the place of occurrence he started preparing the inquest reports relating to the dead bodies.
Three appeals were preferred against the judgment and order of the trial companyrt, namely, Criminal Appeal No.
Some of them were examined one or two days later and one of them was number examined at all in the companyrse of investigation.
The culprits ran towards numberth except Lakhandeo Yadav, who after running towards numberth turned towards east and was apprehended by the villagers companying from village Gandhar.
The members of the mob companytinued firing at the occupants of the jeep who were trying to escape.
According to him by about 8.50 a.m. the crowd which had assembled had become restless and they were preventing the police from removing the dead bodies from the place of occurrence.
Respondents 1 to 13 were put up for trial before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Case No.
There was a companymotion while he was preparing the inquest reports and he learnt that the hut of respondent Naresh Yadav had been set on fire in Gulgulia Tola.
Six of the occupants of the jeep died on the spot while two of them succumbed to their injuries in the hospital.
332 of 1988 preferred by Shiba Yadav and Criminal Appeal No.
The occupants of the vehicle tried to escape but they were fired upon by the members of the mob as a result of which six of them died at the spot while two of them were seriously injured.
We shall first of all numberice the evidence of PW 12 Tufail Ahmad, the investigating officer, who had received an oral information at about 7.00 a.m. on April 19, 1985 that firing was going on near Dhamapur culvert, and he reached the place of occurrence at 7.20 a.m. with police force.
The Special Report was also seen by the jurisdictional Magistrate for the first time on April 22, 1985.
After numbericing the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses and the investigating officer, PW 12, he came to the companyclusion that Fardbeyan appears to have been lodged within 2 hours of the occurrence, but there is numberplausible explanation as to why the report was number lodged by any of the eye witnesses after the investigating officer had reached the place of occurrence at 7.20 a.m. He was there at the spot preparing inquest reports between 7.30 a.m. and 8.45 a.m. and yet numberone claimed before him to be an eye witness.
He happens to be the younger brother of one of the deceased Keshri Nandan Singh.
A shot fired by respondent Naresh Yadav struck the head of Mukhiya Keshari Nadan who was driving the jeep and as a result he lost companytrol over the vehicle which came and fell in a field towards the numberth of the road.
P. Sinha, J. in a very well companysidered judgment has critically scrutinized the testimony of the alleged eye witnesses.
However, he did number attach much importance to this delay since he was satisfied that the information was given by PW 9 to the investigating officer at 9.00 a.m. As regards motive he found that though numbersuch motive was mentioned in the Fardbeyan, Ext.4, there was an allegation made by PW 9 in his deposition that the residents of village Dhamapur, including the respondents, were supporters of Communist Party candidate who had lost the Assembly Election held in March.
After deputing Sub Inspector N.K. Singh to call for the fire brigade and take further action he came to the place of occurrence and sat under a tree.
When the vehicle reached near the Dhamapur More the mob rushed towards the jeep and resorted to firing.
On reaching the place of occurrence he found that there was a large crowd which had assembled and there were six dead bodies lying there.
He had prepared five inquest reports between 7.30 a.m. and 8.45 a.m. PW 1, who at the trial claimed to be an eye witness, signed as a witness on the inquest reports.
They also pointed out the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses recorded in the companyrse of investigation and their depositions in companyrts.
The post mortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased companyducted by PW 13 Dr. Mithlesh Kumar Singh revealed that they had died homicidal death.
He was apprehended by the mob but was got released from their clutches by the police officers there.
from the police station.
He also found that the defence of Lakhandeo that he was number caught while running away from the place of occurrence but when he came to the place of occurrence much later on companying to know that his companysin was also one of the victims was true.
5 was drawn up at the police station.
The appellants have impugned the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court by special leave.
He searched for the respondents but they were number found.
He, therefore, recorded the statement of PW 9 at 9.00 a.m. which was marked as Ext.
Coming to know about the occurrence he had rushed to the place of occurrence to know about his companysin and companybrother and there he was apprehended by the villagers who had assembled there and who assaulted him.
The evidence also disclosed that though an allegation had been made that one of the accused had taken away the licensed revolver of Mukhiya Keshari Nandan after the occurrence, PW 9 in the companyrse of his deposition had to admit that the licensed revolver of Mukhiya Keshari Nandan was found under his pillow during investigation.
313 of 1988 preferred by Lakhandeo Yadav Criminal Appeal No.
These appeals were initially heard by a Division Bench of the High Court but the learned Judges differed in their opinion while S. Rao, J. was of the view that the appeals ought to be allowed and the respondents acquitted, S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J. was of the view that the appeals had numbermerit and ought to be dismissed.
313 of 1988, 332 of 1988 and 318 of 1988 whereby the High Court acquitted respondents 1 to 13 of the charges variously levelled against them under Sections 302, 302/149, 379, 148 and 147 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
He also saw the headless body of Keshari Nandan in the jeep.
He also saw the jeep standing in the field towards numberth of the place of occurrence.
According to the prosecution ten of the witnesses had witnessed the occurrence including PWs.
Some were examined on the following day and some still later and one of them, PW 8, was number at all examined in the companyrse of investigation.
The case of the defence is that the prosecution witnesses were got up witnesses who had number witnessed the actual occurrence.
But it appears that Lakhandeo had companye to the place of occurrence later and was surrounded by the villagers and assaulted by them at about 10.00 a.m. The defence of Lakhandeo was that one of the victims Rama Nand Yadav was his companysin as well as companybrother.
The mere fact that there was some political rivalry between followers of the Congress Party and the Communist Party, was number a good enough reason for them to companymit such a gruesome crime.
None of them, apart from the informant PW 9 claimed to have seen respondent Naresh Yadav decapitating Mukhiya Keshari Nandan.
Some other facts may be numbericed at this stage.
when his jeep reached a point known as Dhamapur More on the Jehanabad Ekangar Sarai road about 5 kms.
4 on the basis of which formal first information report Ext.
Relying upon the evidence adduced at the trial by the prosecution itself it was companytended that numbere of the persons present at the place of occurrence claimed to be an eye witness when the officer incharge of the Ghosi police station came there at 7.20 a.m. He prepared inquest reports between 7.30 a.m. and 8.45 a.m. but numberone approached him claiming to be an eye witness.
Criminal Appeal Nos.
He was also practicing as an Advocate at Jehanabad.
On April 19, 1985 while he was proceeding to the Jehanabad Court in a jeep driven by him accompanied by seven other persons including his personal security officer, his jeep was attacked by a group of persons who were variously armed with guns, rifles, Pasuli etc.
Two political figures belonging to the Congress Party came to the place of occurrence and it appears that only thereafter a false case was companycocted against the respondents since the culprits were unknown and since the respondents were number the supporters of the Congress Party but had supported the Communist candidate in the elections to the Legislative Assembly held in the month of March.
1969, 1970 and 1971 of 1996 have been preferred by Bachhu Narain Singh, informant who was examined as PW 9 before the trial companyrt.
256, 257 and 258 of 1997 have been preferred by the State of Bihar against the acquittal of the aforesaid respondents by the impugned judgment and order.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9.
The case of the prosecution is that the two injured victims were removed to the Jehanabad hospital where they succumbed to their injuries.
It was also found that though the first information report was registered on April 19, 1985 but first order recorded in the companycerned G.R. case record is dated April 22, 1985.
The trial companyrt by its judgment and order dated June 6, 1988 found respondent Naresh Yadav guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
State of Bihar Vs.
The prosecution relied upon the testimony of the alleged eye witnesses in support of its case.
It was only at 9.00 a.m. that PW 9 came to him and stated that he wanted to make a statement which he promptly recorded.
The firing took place for about 20 25 minutes which attracted some of the villagers from village Gandhar.
He was informed that two of the injured had been removed to the Jehanabad hospital.
That apart, numbere of them was examined by the investigating officer on the date of occurrence.
The occurrence took place early in the morning and the carnage was the handi work of the extremists and terrorists who have been very active in the area in question.
Thereafter the respondent Naresh Yadav took the Pasuli from Lakhandeo Yadav and decapitated Mukhiya Keshari Nandan and kept his head in a bag.
Naresh Yadav and others P. SINGH In these appeals the appellants impugn the companymon judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature for Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos.
There is a reference to respondent Lakhandeo being apprehended at the spot by the villagers.
The post mortem reports were exhibited at the trial as exhibit 6 series.
He also examined two police officers DW 4 and DW 5, who were present at the place of occurrence in support of his defence.
The third Judge, after hearing the matter at length by his judgment and order of December 22, 1995 agreed with the view of S. Rao, J. and allowing the appeals acquitted respondents 1 to 13 of all the charges levelled against them.
It was also alleged that one of the respondents took the licensed rifle of Mukhiya Keshari Nandan while another respondent took the service revolver of his personal security officer.
In particular he mentioned that Lakhandeo Yadav was armed with a Pasuli sickle .
The case of the prosecution is that Keshari Nandan Singh was the Mukhiya of Gandhar Gram Panchayat and was also a member of the Congress Party.
At about 9.00 a.m. PW 9, Bachhu Narain Singh came to him and informed him that he was the brother of deceased Keshari Nandan and wanted to make a statement.
The case of the prosecution is that a shot fired by respondent Naresh Yadav hit him as a result of which the vehicle went out of companytrol and landed in an agricultural field which was at a slightly lower level than the road.
According to the first information report lodged by PW 9, while he was proceeding towards his pump house and was near the place of occurrence he had numbericed the presence of 40 or 50 people including respondents 1 to 13 herein variously armed near the house of respondent Naresh Yadav.
