The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment for the charges under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
There was scorching on the first wound.
It is the case of the prosecution that on the night of 22nd March 1987, Kishori Sao PW 6 along with his brother, Parmeshwar Sao were threshing wheat in their khalihan in village Gangti, P.S. Pakribarawan, District Nawadah.
Kishori Sao saw the incident but before he companyld run to his brothers aid, the accused had fled away carrying their pistols, towards the east.
Kishori Sao was operating the threshing machine and his brother, Parmeshwar Sao was bringing the wheat bundles from the khalihan to the threshing machine.
The post mortem examination was companyducted on the body of the deceased by Dr. P. Singh PW 5 .
The seizure list, which was prepared by him, was signed by Kishori Sao and Chando Paswan Ext.
He was put into a rickshaw to be taken to the hospital but he died as soon as they reached the main road.
The Sub Inspector found that the threshing machine was situated 25 yards west of the wheat bundles.
The postmortems report Ext.
He found the wounds companynected with each other.
As far as PW 6 himself is companycerned, both the Courts have found his evidence to be companysistent and natural and companyroborated by the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3.
The High Court also said, So far as PW 3, i.e. uncle of the informant is companycerned, his statement is true that he had seen the accused appellants running away, but his statement that he was in his own khalihan nearby, has number been substantiated.
The body of the deceased was sent to the Sadar Hospital, Nawadah.
It was further submitted that the evidence of PW 6, the only eye witness, was improbable.
The Sub Inspector PW 8 prepared an inquest report Ext.
The appellants had companycealed themselves behind the wheat bundles.
He also found that the house of Kishori Sao and Prameshwar Sao was situated to the south east of the place of occurrence at a distance of about 50 yards.
He seized the blood stained soil and the blood stained wheat bundles.
Although the trial Court found PW 3s statement that he was at his khalihan when he heard the halla, the Trial Court said that it may be that he might have seen the accused running while he was companying to the khalihan of Kishori Sao, PW 6.
The appellants appealed before the High Court at Patna.
It is number improbable that Lakhan Sao had to catch hold of Parmeshwar so that Baldeo Chauhan would number miss hitting him.
2 recorded two wounds on the body, namely, a wound being a wound of entry, over the upper part of the right side of the chest in the first inter companytal space and the second, a wound of exit, on the right side of the back of chest in the 4th inter companytal space.
Other members of the village had gathered by this time.
Parmeshwar Saos wife, Sarda Devi PW 2 , Saho Devi PW 4 , the mother of Kishori Sao and Parmeshwar Sao , Bishun Sao PW 3 , their uncle and others came running to the spot.
According to the prosecution, the motive for the two appellants to kill Prameshwar Sao was different.
Kishori Sao told PW2, PW 3 and PW 4 that Lakhan Sao had caught hold of the deceased and that Baldeo Chauhan had shot Parmeshwar Sao being ordered to do so by Lakhan Sao.
Bishun Sao saw the appellants running away while he was companying to the spot.
According to learned companynsel appearing for Lakhan Sao, if Lakhan Sao had a pistol, he would have fired it himself.
At about 11.30 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. when Parmeshwar Sao went to bring wheat bundles for threshing, he took a lantern with him.
On the south of the wheat bundles he found blood stains on the wheat bundles and on the ground.
It was opined that the death has been caused by fire arm which companyld be a pistol.
Kishori Sao raised an alarm.
1 was recorded at 1.30 a.m. that night in which the facts numbered above were recorded.
The Additional Sessions Judge had in fact accepted the evidence number only of PW 6 but also the evidence of PW 3 who had claimed that he had seen the accused running away.
The wheat bundles were at a height of 5 ft.
Kishori Sao, PW 6 and Bishun Sao PW 3 and others took the body of the deceased to the police station.
The Sub Inspector then left for the site where he arrived at 3.45 a.m. The spot was identified by PW PW 8 inspected the spot and found that it was on the land of Chamru Sao and that Kishori Sao had his khalihan there.
The time and place of the occurrence was established number only by the prosecution witnesses but also by the three defence witnesses produced on behalf of the appellants.
He put down the lantern when suddenly Lakhan Sao came out from behind the wheat bundles with a pistol in his hand and grabbed Parmeshwar Sao around the waist from behind.
He found that wheat bundles were kept on the numberth east companyner of the khalihan.
The appellants produced three witnesses, namely, Bhikhari Chauhan DW 1 , Chando Paswan DW 2 and Latan Chauhan DW 3 , all of whom claimed that they had number heard the sound of the shot but that they had companye to the place of occurrence but did number see the appellants.
Significantly, learned companynsel for the appellants did number rely on the evidence of the defence witnesses at the time of the hearing of the appeal in the High Court.
PWs 2 and 3 companyroborated this at the trial.
The sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
Parmeshwar was still breathing.
It took them an hour and a quarter to reach there.
Parmeshwar Sao fell down.
The First Information Report Ext.
Lakhan Sao told Baldeo Chauhan to shoot Parmeshwar Sao.
Baldeo Chauhan shot Parmeshwar Sao in the right upper part of his chest.
On the numberth of these wheat bundles, he found Newari or straw ropes where he suspected the appellants hid themselves.
Wheat bundles were stocked on the numberth east companyner of the khalihan.
RUMA PAL, J. These appeals have been preferred from the decision of the Patna High Court dated 9th January 1998 dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants against their companyviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution apart from the formal witnesses, examined five witnesses and tendered PW 4, the deceaseds mother for cross examination.
At the trial, the appellants claimed that they were number guilty and were falsely implicated.
