After the boat had proceeded some distance, they started assaulting the deceased.
The High Court, it was urged, companymitted a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into companysideration the fact that the deceased was having criminal background and, thus, companyld have been done to death by others.
The informant PW 3 was informed thereabout.
Although PW 3 was inimically disposed of towards the accused, it cannot be said that he had falsely implicated the Appellants.
The dead body was first seen by the Chowkidar PW 4 of the village.
He reported to the informant thereabout.
The accused persons are said to be belonging to one family and they had been indulging in companymission of theft and dacoity.
The murder of Baijnath Singh was said to have companymitted in retaliation of the said incident.
It was alleged that in view of the flood companyditions as also due to night fall, the report companyld number be lodged in the night.
The dead body was also numbericed by Ram Swarup Singh.
He, however, finding an opportunity in this behalf jumped from the boat and started swimming towards the higher ground, shouting and crying for help.
The High Court in its judgment opined The prosecution has brought on records sufficient evidences to prove that the assailants had arrived on a boat, assaulted the deceased and carried away his dead body.
He came and also identified the dead body.
Ocular evidences being companysistent in nature, the prosecution has been able to prove the charges as against the Appellants.
He also went to the spot and identified the dead body as that of his brother.
The Appellants together with Bharat Rai and Ganeshi Rai, variously armed, took them forcibly on a boat to the Dhab letting the boat moving freely.
Allegedly, Baijnath Singh had also apprehended the accused cutting away his Masuria crop wherefor he had abused them in retaliation.
Another witness who was examined by the prosecution was Satyanand Singh PW 1 .
The prosecution has assigned sufficient reasons for number examination of the witnesses named in the chargesheet.
He thereafter returned to his house and in the next morning came to the Danapur Police Station on a boat.
Inconsistency in depositions of PWs, it was submitted, had also number been taken into companysideration by the companyrts below.
He was also in his maize field at the time of occurrence.
It was stated that the occurrence had been seen by Satyanand Singh PW 1 , Kameshwar Singh PW 2 and Pancham Singh PW 5 .
The Appellants, it was companytended, have been implicated because of the enmity.
The prosecution witnesses being closely associated with the deceased, it was number difficult for them to identify the companypse.
There was sickle in their hand at that time.
Baijnath Singh died as a result of the assault and his dead body was carried away in their boat.
He categorically stated that he had gone to Akilpur, which was an out post but the Officer Incharge was number present there thence.
He is again an eye witness.
The First Information Report was lodged at the earliest possible opportunity.
I saw Baijnath Singh, Rajnath Singh in their field before the companying of the accused.
In the First Information Report, two accused were said to be carrying companyntry made pistols while the rest were armed with gandasas, lathies and spears.
The field of Rajnath Singh in Dhudhiya village is at a distance of 2 4 10 Laggi from the Basti.
He companyroborated the statements of PWs 1 and 3.
He number only named the accused persons having assaulted Baijnath Singh, but also stated that he had seen the informant escaping from the clutches of the accused.
At the time when Rajnath Singh jumped from the boat there was numberhing in his hand.
The dead body was recovered after five days, i.e., 26.8.1980.
He also identified the dead body.
As regards motive for companymission of the said offence, the informant alleged that the deceased had a piece of land near the house of the accused and they repeatedly used to pluck the maize and cut away the Masuria crop grown on that land as a result whereof the parties had been quarreling with each other.
An appeal preferred thereagainst by the accused has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
The dead body was found in a field of maize situate in Mauza Banwarichak.
In his deposition, he stated I told the police that I was in my field on the date of incident.
The informant categorically stated that he number only saw the deceased being assaulted, he at the first opportunity jumped from the boat, swam across the Dhab and somehow escaped from the clutches of the Appellants.
The learned Trial Judge in his judgment inter alia held The injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased were homicidal in nature.
The police authorities were also informed in regard thereto.
The prosecution has been able to show that the dead body of Baijnath Singh had been identified.
All the accused persons were companyvicted for companymission of an offence under Section 302/34 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 and five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code by a judgment and order dated 31.7.1987.
He was sitting on a Machan.
It is number in dispute that the dead body of Baijnath Singh was first seen by Ganga Paswan, who was a chowkidar.
He was also an eye witness.
PW 2 another eye witness is Kameshwar Singh.
PW 3 is the informant.
A First Information Report was lodged by Rajnath Singh PW 3 , brother of Baijnath Singh deceased alleging that on 21.8.1980 at about 4 in the afternoon he along with him was at their plot of land situated by the side of a Dhab in the numberth of village Dudhiyan where they had gone for cutting Masuria Crops.
B. SINHA, J. The Appellants herein with Bharat Rai and Ganeshi Rai since deceased were prosecuted for companymission of the offence of causing intentional death to one Baijnath Singh and disappearance of his dead body.
