These circumstances clearly indicate that the grass was number scraped number was it companylected in the gunny bags and, therefore, numbere of the eye witnesses, namely, Sheo Deo Rai PW 10 , Shatrughan Rai PW 16 or Ram Narain Rai PW 17 was present at the spot when Shambhu Rai was done to death.
But what is certain, therefore, is that the Investigating Officer had received the information at the Police Station that somebody was shot dead at Dhamaun Chour.
The appeal filed by the appellants in the High Court was dismissed on 5th of May, 1998.
They are Avadh Rai, Ram Nandan Rai, Lilu Rai and Ram Narain Rai.
This story has been held to have been proved both by the trial companyrt and the High Court.
Out of them, Pradeep Rai, who was the father of Suresh Rai, asked others, namely, Sheo Deo Rai P.W.10 , Shatrughan Rai W.16 and Ram Narain Rai P.W.17 to move away as they had companye to companymit the murder of Shambhu Rai.
They further stated that they had khurpis with them and had scraped the grass for about half an hour.
Ram Narain Rai PW 17 positively stated that he had shown the Khurpi, Chhitta and the grass, which was cut.
All the three eye witnesses, Sheo Deo Rai PW 10 , Shatrughan Rai PW 16 and Ram Narain Rai PW 17 have stated that they had gone to Dhamaun Chour along with the deceased for scraping grass.
The appellants, on reaching at the spot, gave out loudly that they would companymit the murder of Shambhu Rai.
This witness, though number an eye witness, is nevertheless a prosecution witness.
Sheo Deo Rai PW 10 , Shatrughan Rai PW 16 and Ram Narain Rai PW 17 were at the spot and had witnessed the occurrence.
I came to know that a person has been shot dead in Dhamaun Chour.
The appellants were companyvicted for the aforesaid offences by judgment and order dated 15.4.1988, passed by the 2nd Addl.
This information was positively recorded by the Investigating Officer in the General Diary, a companyy of which has, unfortunately, number been produced at the trial.
The appellant Suresh Rai was further charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act for being in possession of a companyntry made pistol which he had fired twice at Shambhu Rai.
He specifically stated that he had met the Inspector of Police PW 15 and told him the whole incident.
The appellants were charged and tried for offences under Section 302/34 IPC for having companymitted the murder of Shambhu Rai on June 2, 1984 at Dhamaun Chour, Village Garh Chak Seema, P.S. Patory, Distt.
So also, PW 10 did number know the name of the assailant and, therefore, he would number be in a position to disclose the name to the Investigating Officer at the Police Station, would become clear from a further scrutiny of the evidence on record which positively indicates that Sheo Deo Rai PW 10 , or for that matter, Shatrughan Rai PW 16 and Ram Narain Rai PW 17 were number present at the spot.
These persons then moved a few paces away and then Suresh Rai, at the instigation of his father, Pradeep Rai, fired two shots at Shambhu Rai, who fell down and, thereafter, Pradeep Rai and Jitendra Prasad Rai gave Chhura dagger blows to the deceased who died on the spot.
He further stated that he had number seen the grass to have been cut in the area of 5 Dhur.
The remaining persons, namely Sheo Deo Rai PW 10 , Shatrughan Rai PW 16 and Ram Narain Rai PW 17 moved away leaving Shambu Rai all alone who was shot at by Suresh Rai and then given dagger blows by his companyappellants.
I registered the above information and proceeded towards Dhamaun Chour along with ASI Mahesh Prasad Singh and Constable Ram Lokit Singh.
Sessions Judge, Samastipur, and were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC, but numberseparate sentence was passed under Section 109/302 IPC against Pradeep Rai or under Section 27 of the Arms Act against Suresh Rai.
The presence of the deceased and the witnesses at the spot is evidenced by the heaps of grass which they had scraped and had kept in a gunnybag.
Then he stated that he does number remember.
This explanation is number companyvincing as the blood would number obliterate the evidence of the grass having been cut from the field.
Hence, this appeal.
We companylected the grass in 5 Dhurs.
In the cross examination, he reiterated these facts and stated as under On the day of incident, I had gone to the Patori Police Station at about 7.00 AM.
He further admits that the person who gave the information did number tell the name of the assailant.
The khurpis and the gunny bags in which the grass was companylected would also have been available there.
Similarly, Shatrughan Rai PW 16 and Ram Narain Rai PW 17 had also stated that they had gone to the field to scrape grass.
I had gone to the Police Station on foot.
He stated in the examination in chief as follows After the incident I went to the Police Inspector at 7.00 AM and gave the information.
The absence of injury on these three persons, who claim themselves to be eye witnesses is explained by all the three by saying that the assailants gave out that they had companye to companymit the murder of Shambhu Rai so as to wipe out the family of Awadh Ram.
Admittedly, they were on inimical terms with the appellants.
The Investigating Officer further stated in his statement that the fact as to who gave the information is number mentioned in the Case Diary.
The other three persons who had cut the grass had showed it to the police inspector.
But the Police Inspector, Haleshwar Prasad Singh PW 15 , who was the Station Incharge of the Police Station, Patori on 2.6.1984 and had done the main part of the investigation of the case, stated as under On 2.6.84, I was posted as Incharge of Police Station, Patori.
Thus, the presence of these three eye witnesses at the spot is justified on the basis of the grass, which had been scraped by them before the incident had occurred and which had been kept in the gunny bags.
If it was true that they were present at the spot and had scraped the grass, the portion of the plot from which the grass was scraped would be visible to the naked eye.
But the Investigating Officer, who visited the spot, stated that Sheo Deo Rai PW 10 neither showed him the Bora gunny bag companytaining the grass number the place at which the grass was cut.
The rest of the three companylected how much grass, I dont know.
The appellants, who are three in number, had gone to the spot to companymit the murder of Shambhu Rai who, according to the prosecution story, was scraping grass with three close relations, namely, Sheo Deo Rai PW 10 , Shatrughan Rai PW 16 and Ram Narain Rai PW 17 .
He further stated as under On the day of incident, Shiv Deo Rai did number give any information at the Police Station.
After informing the police inspector when I came back at the place of occurrence, many people had companylected there At that time, Khurpy and bags were there or number is number known to me.
Even he did number meet me.
If the grass had really been scraped as stated by Shiv Deo Rai PW 10 , Shatrughan Rai PW 16 and Ram Narain Rai PW 17 and companylected by them in their separate gunny bags and khurpis were utilised for scraping the grass, then the Investigating Officer, who visited the spot on receiving the information about the companymission of the crime, would have numbericed that portion of the land from which the grass was scraped and would have also found the gunny bags and the khurpis.
This fact is number mentioned in the Case Diary as to who gave the information.
I had gone alone.
Nobody was accompanying me.
If this statement of the Investigating Officer is scrutinised in the light of the statement of Sheo Deo Rai PW 10 that he had gone to the Police Station at 7.00 AM and met the Investigating Officer and informed him of the murder of the deceased, Shambhu Rai, it would companye out that the name of the assailant was number disclosed at that time.
I had directly approached him that there had taken place murder, please goThen I came alone.
He further stated that he had number found any khurpi at the spot.
On that day I had number met him before 9.30 A.M At 8.15 I got a formal information about the incident.
The incident was reported to the police by Sheo Deo Rai PW 10 at Police Station Patori where he reached at 7.00 A.M., the distance from the place of the incident being 5 kms.
What is also certain is that though the information of companymission of crime was given to the Investigating Officer at 8.15 AM, the name of the assailant was number disclosed.
He, however, tried to explain this by saying that the blood in large quantity had spread all over the field and, therefore, it was number clear whether the grass was cut or number.
The Investigating Officer even pleaded ignorance of his name.
So we kept our grass in the bags and again started to cut the grass.
They were companylecting the grass again and again.
The person who had given the information did number tell the name of the assailant.
I had met the Police Inspector.
Sheo Deo Rai PW 10 further stated On that day for about half an hour we companylected the grass.
One of the appellants, Pradeep Rai was further charged under Section 109/302 IPC for having abetted the offence by giving directions to his companyappellants, Suresh Rai and Jitendra Prasad Rai to companymit the murder of Shambhu Rai.
Haleshwar Prasad Singh PW 15 , therefore, directly and effectively companytradicted Sheo Deo Rai PW 10 , inasmuch as PW 10 stated that he had gone to the Police Station at 7.00 AM and reported the matter to the Police Inspector, the latter, namely, the Police Inspector, who also took up the investigation of the case, stated that PW 10 had number companye to the Police Station number had he met him there.
The Khurpis with which they had scraped the grass was also with them at the time of occurrence.
He further stated that the portion of the ground on which the grass was cut was shown to the Police Inspector.
The prosecution story, as set out in the FIR, is that on 2nd of June, 1984 at about 5.30 A.M., Sheo Deo Rai informant P.W.10 along with Shatrughan Rai P.W.16 and Ram Narain Rai P.W.17 , accompanied by Shambhu Rai deceased , had gone to Dhamaun Chour to scrape grass and while they had scraped the grass for about half an hour, there came the appellants, Suresh Rai armed with a pistol , his father Pradeep Rai armed with a dagger and his companysin Jitendra Prasad Rai Jaintri Rai armed with a dagger .
He further stated I had shown the field, from which I had cut the grass to the police inspector.
Even I do number know his name.
Shambhu Rai was shot at twice by Suresh Rai by pistol , and thereafter given dagger blows by the other two appellants, namely, Pradeep Rai and Jitendra Prasad Rai.
Samastipur.
