The prosecution has unfolded it story as under Yamuna Singh A 1 owned a double storeyed building situated in a lane called Langertoli in Patna town.
Prasad Sharma.
The trial companyrt on appreciation of ocular evidence and other materials on record found all the appellants guilty under Sections 120B/302 and 302/34 IPC and companyvicted each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life.
They pleaded that they are innocent and they be acquitted.
Thereafter he rolled down in the lane.
The deceased was a Professor of Sanskrit in Government Sanskrit companylege Rajinder Nagar, Patna.
Yamuna Singh A 1 , Chitradeo Prasad Singh A 3 and Ashok Kumar Singh P.W.I caught hold of the deceased who tried to struggle and get out of their clutches, however, he companyld number succeed.
It was decided that Ramayan Singh A 2 , a Sanskrit teacher who was known to Prof. Maheshwar Prasad and was a man of his companyfidence would sleep during the.
After a short time, the absconding accused, came there and a little later he himself went to the police station and lodged the report stating that some unknown persons have companymitted the murder of Prof. Maheshwar Prasad Sharma.
In order to lend companyroboration to the approvers evidence, the prosecution drew support from the evidence of Meena Kumari P.W. 22 and Phulia Devi P.W. 28 .
Accused person then fled away.
On the second floor there was one room and an open terrace which was in occupation of Yamuna Singh A 1 .
This talk was overheard by Abhay Kumar P.W. 23 , the brother of Ashok Kumar Singh P.W. I and he has companyroborated this part of the companyspiracy.
Since local police did number show any progress in the investigation, it was handed over to CBI.
All these accused then came to the house of A 1, absconding accused was then carrying a Gupti, Chitradeo Singh A 3 was made to stand in the lane in front of the door of the deceased and Ram Babu A 4 was standing at the junction of the lane.
Once the deceased told them, you are running a brothel and this will have a very bad effect on the youngsters and other residents in the locality.
In addition to this evidence the prosecution also relied upon several other circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused.
Upon hearing this, Prof. Maheshwar Prasad came out of his room.
Yamuna Singh A 1 Chitra Deo Prasad A 3 and Ashok Kumar Singh P.W. I caught hold of Prof. Maheshwar Prasad who although struggled but companyld number get himself rescued.
According to them they have been falsely implicated in the present crime.
The other appellants accused persons were close associates and friends of Yamuna Singh A 1 .
All the appellants and the absconding accused used to gather at the place of Yamuna Singh A 1 and shared cheap jokes with these two ladies.
This fact was known to the appellants.
It is alleged by the prosecution that the deceased came out of his room on the road and shouted at the appellants.
It is against this Judgment and order of the High Court the appellants have filed the present appeals.
It was also decided that during night the lower gate of the stair case would be kept open to facilitate free entry.
At that time Meena Kumari P.W. 22 and Phulia Devi P.W. 28 were preparing the meals in the varandah.
The absconding accused as per the companyspiracy at about mid night knocked the door of the deceased and thereupon Ramayan Singh A 2 , who was sleeping inside the room opened the door and shouted Bap Re Bap.
All the appellants again started enjoying cheap jokes with loud screams which annoyed the deceased.
The appellants preferred four separate appeals to the High Court of Patna and on reappraisal of entire evidence on record the High Court dismissed all these appeals.
This companyspiracy was heard by Meena Kumari P.W. 22 and Phulia Devi P.W. 28 .
Both of them tried to desist Yamuna Singh A 1 from companymitting any such illegal act.
On 26.1.1979 as companyspired in the afternoon Chitradeo Prasad Singh A 3 at about 10.30 p.m. went to the house of Ashok Kumar Singh P.W. I and told him that he was wanted by the absconding accused.
It is alleged by the prosecution that Yamuna Singh A 1 , since last two months had kept Meena Kumari P.W. 22 and Phulia Devi P.W. 28 in his room.
companyspiracy was companyked up by the appellants on 26.1.1979.
Yamuna Singh A 1 and his associates were waiting for a chance to teach a lesson to the deceased.
We may number proceed to companysider the evidence of approver P.W. I .
After registering the offence investigation companymenced.
He was a very orthodox and religious minded person.
Yamuna Singh A 1 , the absconding accused, Chitra Deo Prasad A 3 made to stand in the lane in front of the door of the deceased.
At times they were found screaming.
At the trial the absconding accused companyld number be apprehended and, therefore, his trial was separated.
Ram Babu A 4 was standing at another junction of the lane.
Both these ladies were of easy virtues.
On 26.1.1979 sometime in the afternoon A 2 to A 4 and Hari Mangal hereinafter called the absconding accused because his trial is pending and prosecution has to prove his companyplicity came to the room of Yamuna Singh A 1 .
It is alleged by the prosecution that on 26.1.1979 the appellants worked out a companyspiracy to eliminate Prof. Maheshwar Prasad Sharma.
The absconding accused knocked the door of Prof. Maheshwar Prasad and thereupon it was opened by Ramayan Singh A 2 , who uttered the words Bap Re Bap.
After hearing the fire arm shot, residents in the locality woke up and came on the road.
The appellants and in particular Yamuna Singh A 1 got upset by this remark made by the deceased and told him that if he is unhappy in the premises he may find out some other accommodation.
In the meantime the absconding accused took out his Gupti and gave a forcible blow on the left shoulder of Prof. Maheshwar Prasad, who screamed loudly and fell on the ota.
As anticipated by the companyspirators, the deceased came out of his room.
Meena Kumari P.W. 22 and Phulia Devi P.W. 28 narrated as to how ???
After some time Yamuna Singh A 1 came back to his house and while standing near the telephone pole he fired a shot, and then entered in his house from the southern side.
After a short time Yamuna Singh A 1 came back in the lane near the telephone pole, fired a short from his gun in the air and ran away towards the southern side of the lane from where he entered in his house.
Yamuna Singh A 1 told these ladies to keep quiet otherwise they will have to face dire companysequences.
During night when the door would be knocked, Ramayan Singh A 2 would open the door, and utter the word Bap Re Bap and on such utterances Prof. Maheshwar Prasad would companye out of his room and then he would be killed.
The prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of Ashok Kumar Singh P.W. I , the approver.
On hearing this companyment from the deceased, Yamuna Singh A 1 retorted by saying, why anyone it companyld be yours.
The appellants again retorted to the deceased saying that he may vacate the room as early as possible.
The ground floor companysisted of three tenements out of which a tenement of two rooms, inter connected by a door, was in possession of Prof. Maheshwar Prasad Sharma since deceased , another tenement was occupied by Hari Mangal Prasad Singh the absconding accused and the third tenement was in possession of Chamari Prasad P.W. 20 .
In the meantime the absconding accused took out his Gupti and forcibly hit on the left shoulder of the deceased who thereafter fell down on the ota and rolled down in the lane.
Abyay Kumar Singh P.W. 23 the brother of Ashok Kumar Singh P.W. I overheard this talk.
During investigation the statements of various witnesses were recorded.
Because of such threats given by A 1 the deceased had stopped companying out of his room during night time even for urination.
They numbericed the dead body of Prof. Maheshwar Prasad Sharma, lying on the road in front of his room.
After companypleting the investigation the charge sheet under Sections 120B/302, 302/34 IPC against all the appellants including the absconding accused was submitted.
The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
The absconding accused A 3 came to the house of Yamuna Singh A 1 and went in his room.
night in his room as in the past he had slept once.
They pleaded that in the early morning of 27.1.1979 they heard a sound of fire arm and at that time probably some unknown persons might have companymitted the murder of Prof. Maheshwar.
All the accused then fled away.
At the material time his son, Sri Prakash PW 10 was staying with him.
Since these appeals arise out of a companymon judgment and order, they are being disposed of by this Judgment.
P. Kurdukar, J. These four Criminal Appeals are filed by the appellants accused challenging the legality and companyrectness of the judgment and order dated April 25, 1986 passed by the Patna High Court dismissing these appeals and companyfirming the judgment and order dated 25.3.1981 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patna companyvicting each of the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 120B/302 and 302/34 IPC.
