Accused number4 also shot a fire causing injury in the leg of the deceased while accused number3 also fired from his rifle.
The appellant has questioned the companyrectness of the findings recorded in the impugned judgment by the High Court in affirming the companyviction and sentence awarded against him along with others.
Further, the witnesses whose names were found in the fardbeyan claimed to have seen the occurrence of the incident.
The fardbeyan was recorded by ASI RS Singh at about 7.00 p.m. on the same date at Tungi High School hostel, Latawar Payeen and the inquest report of the dead body was also prepared at the place of occurrence itself at 7.10 p.m. Seizure list of certain incriminating items including empty fired cartridges which were recovered from the spot was also prepared.
The appellant herein was the appellant in Crl.
The companyviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was challenged by the accused in the appeals referred to supra before the High Court of Patna.
A.Nos.
The High Court after hearing all the accused appellants passed the companymon judgment affirming the companyviction and sentence in relation to the present appellant and set aside the companyviction and sentence in so far as Awadhesh Singh, Jaddu Singh and Nawal Singh who were held to be number found guilty of the charges under Section 302 read with section 34, IPC, i.e. in the appeal number.241/98 and 247/98.
Accused number5 was also having a rifle and he threw the dead body of the deceased in the Payeen.
Formal FIR was recorded and investigation was taken up by the police.
It is also the case of the prosecution that during the companyrse of the occurrence of the incident the informant PW2 Arvind Kumar was kept over powered by the deceased accused Moti Singh and Jaddu Singh and after accomplishing the target, they left.
On companycluding the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of which companynizance was taken by him and the case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge on appraisal of the evidence and record passed the judgment dated 04.04.1998 imposing the companyviction and sentence against the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and awarded sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC.
During pendency of the appeals the accused by name, Moti Singh died and his appeal got abated.
The accused pleaded number guilty.
The case of the prosecution is that the deceased along with his companysin brother Arvind Kumar PW2 were going to Tungi for catching a bus for Kothar on 16.7.96 at about 3.30 p.m. When they proceeded at a distance ahead of Tungi High School near Latawar Payeen, the accused persons named above surrounded them.
However, as far as the present appellant and others are companycerned, the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was affirmed.
A.No.318 of 1998 before the High Court.
The case went for trial and the prosecution has examined the witnesses PW1 to PW9 and two witnesses were examined in support of the defence.
The deceased accused Moti Singh is alleged to have exhorted his other associates to shoot the deceased Shailendra Kumar upon which the appellant herein took out a companyntry made revolver and pumped its bullets in the temple of the deceased and accused number2 who was having a rifle in his hand fired in the abdomen of the deceased.
The learned Sessions Judge on his turn transferred the case to the file of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah and the charges were framed for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The deceased Shailendra Kumar was murdered on 16.07.1996 at about 3.30 p.m. by the appellant Umesh Singh and other persons, namely, Awadhesh Singh, Sudhir Singh, Jaddu Singh, Nawal Singh, Binda Singh Bindeshwari Singh by shooting him with a revolver and rifle with a criminal intention for unlawful purpose in furtherance of companymon intention along with other accused and to have in their possession of fire arms with an intention to use it for an unlawful purpose to companymit murder of Shailendra Kumar along with accused number.5 6 and another accused Moti Singh who is dead.
The sentence awarded regarding the companyviction under different heads of charges ordered were to run companycurrently.
The brief facts in relation to the prosecution case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal companytentions that are urged on behalf of the parties with a view to find out as to whether this Court is required to interfere with the companycurrent finding of fact recorded in affirming the companyviction and sentence imposed against the appellant.
241, 247, 271 and 318 of 1998 in affirming the companyviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act urging various facts and legal companytentions.
The impugned judgment passed in the said case is under challenge in this appeal.
Gopala Gowda, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the companymon judgment dated 22nd May, 2003 passed in Crl.
