The motive behind the occurrence has been alleged to be the number participation of the prosecution party at the dinner organised by the respondent Kirandeo Prasad on the occasion of Satya Narain Puja, 10/12 days prior to the occurrence and the respondent had threatened him with dire companysequences.
The injured Sukhu Mahton died of fire arm injury at the spot.
On companysideration of the prosecution evidence and other materials on record, the trial Judge companyvicted and sentenced the respondent number1 Kirandeo Prasad as indicated above.
The accused Bhagwat Prasad assaulted the informant, Kapildeo Sinha PW 6 with Saif on his head and Umesh Prasad with lathi on his right hand.
The informant, Kapildeo Sinha PW 6 put law in motion and on the basis of his statement a formal F.I.R. was drawn up by the police and the case under Sections 147/148/149/302/324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1927 in short the Arms Act was instituted against the respondent number1 and five other accused persons.
The accused Akhilesh Prasad assaulted Sukhu Mahton with Saif on his head.
PWs 5, 6 7 stated companytrary to what PW 1 had stated and stated that they were number participating in Holi because of the death of the deceased.
In appeal, High Court set aside the companyviction.
However, he acquitted the rest of the five accused persons of the charges framed against them.
5, 6 7 i.e. Somar Mahton, Kapildeo Sinha and Ramji Prasad Rama respectively were stated to be eye witnesses to the occurrence.
The accused Mathura Prasad also assaulted the informant on his right shoulder and the accused Akhilesh Prasad assaulted his uncle Somar Mahton from the lathi portion of the Saif which caused injury on his both hands.
The accused persons pleaded their innocence and false implication out of enmity.
On hearing their cries the companyvillagers including Rajendra Mahton PW 2 arrived there and he was also assaulted by the companyaccused, Nandu.
The Investigating Officer switched over to investigation and ultimately chargesheeted all the six accused persons for trial and they were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharshariff.
Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows In the evening of 25.3.1978 at about 6 P.M. the informant Kapildeo Singh PW 6 alongwith his uncle Sukhu Mahton hereinafter referred to as the deceased , Somar Mahton PW 5 and father Ramji Prasad PW 7 were sitting in the Dalan and were talking about the rent matter.
PW 1 the son of the deceased stated that they were singing Holi songs.
The deceased Sukhu Mahton was taken to Islampur Police Station under Nalanda at Biharsharif District.
PW 1 also stated that due to darkness they companyld number know as to who was the assailant.
The High Court found that seven witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version.
At trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses and the defence examined numbere.
Before the High Court the respondent No.1 pointed out that the police officer who made investigation of the case was number examined in the trial companyrt causing serious prejudice to him.
The doctor who companyducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased was also number examined.
On protest the respondent number1 Kirandeo Prasad fired from his gun at Sukhu Mahton which hit in the right side of his chest and he fell down.
Further the Holi celebration by singing of songs was companytinuing since morning till late night, therefore, there was numberhing unreliable in the evidence of PWs 5, 6 7.
In the mean time the respondent number1 Kirandeo Prasad with gun, the accused Akhilesh Prasad with Saif and rest four accused persons namely, Nandu Prasad, Mathura Prasad, Bhagwat Prasad and Umesh Prasad with lathi came there and started exchanging hot words with Sukhu Mahton.
Hence appeal was filed by Kirandeo Prasad.
Although PW 1 was the son of the deceased, PW 2 was the injured witness, PW 6 the present appellant was the informant, PWs.
He was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Six accused persons faced trial and learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda, directed acquittal of five of the accused persons, while holding the respondent No.1 guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court directing acquittal of the respondent No.1 hereinafter referred to as the accused .
Appellant was the informant in the case.
