They threatened to shoot the informant and his companypanions whereafter they ran towards their village Neora raising alarm Chor Chor.
An information is said to have been sent to the police station by telephone from a nearby Christian Mission at about 8.15 p.m. The dead body of Mister Mian was recovered from an open field situated about 750 yards away from the place wherefrom he had allegedly been taken away forcibly.
This Court dismissed the special leave petition of Devi Dayal Singh, Sarjug Singh and Mathura Singh by an order dated 9.11.1998.
One of the accused persons, Budhan Singh, is said to have died.
3,4,5 and 6 together for the purpose of appreciation of evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
401 of 1981.
The accused persons thereafter were said to have fled away.
Before the learned Trial Judge, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined 12 witnesses whereas the defence examined 8 witnesses on its behalf.
He evidently was on inimical terms with the accused.
PWs 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 11 are the witnesses whereupon reliance has been placed both by the Trial Court as also by the High Court.
The learned Sessions Judge by reason of his judgment dated 29th November, 1986 companyvicted Devi Dayal Singh, Mathura Singh and Sarjug Singh for companymission of an offence under Sections 302/34, 120B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
He belonged to village Mauza Shahpur within the police station of Phulwari.
The deceased was brought on a company to the village by Deo Nath Paswan PW 9 , Md. Amanullah PW 8 , Jakiuddin PW 7 , Alauddin Nut PW 3 , Amiruddin PW 10 and others at about 8 p.m. The accused persons snatched away the deceased Mister Mian along with the company at the point of firearms whereupon people from village Shahpur including Mithila Sharan Singh PW 1 arrived.
It was moonlit night.
Mithila Sharan Singh is PW 1.
On an appeal preferred by the Appellants thereagainst, whereas the companyviction of all the accused persons were companyfirmed, the High Court reduced the sentence from five years to two years in respect of those who were found to be guilty only under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
PW 11 is Saudagar Mian.
The Appellants Rajendra Singh, Surendra Singh, Jagdish Singh, Arjun Singh along with Ram Yad Singh, Bikku Singh and Budhan Singh were, however, companyvicted only under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment.
His companyduct during the companyrse of investigation raised a great deal of suspicion as regard truthfulness or otherwise of his statements before the companyrt.
They carried the company with injured Mister towards the west Khandha.
They had taken away the company with injured Mister.
I had recognized the accused persons in the light of moonlit and the light of torch.
His presence is number disputed, as against him also a case was registered by the accused.
PW 2 is Syeduddin Nut.
The said witness also named the Appellants herein.
He fell on the agricultural field belonging to one Jalandhar Singh.
The accused had abused them.
PW 9 claimed to be an eye witness.
He is number an Appellant before us.
He also in his deposition named the Appellants.
PW 8 is Md. Amanullah.
Saudagar and Amiruddin were having torch in their hands.
Surendra was armed with the rifle, Rajindra was armed with pistol and Chandrika was armed with companyntry made pistol.
The Trial Court took up the said points No.
The companymission of the offence relates to snatching away of Mister Mian along with the company at the point of firearms.
They took possession of the company forcibly on which we were carrying the injured Mister and told us to run away otherwise they would shoot us.
According to him, after the company of Mister Mian was taken away, they fled from the place of occurrence out of fear.
On hearing such alarm, Mister Mian deceased , brother of the informant and several other villagers rushed whereupon Devi Dayal Singh allegedly ordered to fire shots pursuant whereto four persons were said to have fired shots which hit the deceased Mister Mian.
According to him, the Appellants and others took the company away from their shoulders.
They threatened us.
In his cross examination, he categorically stated that although they had number been assaulted, but were threatened.
It was quarter to eight.
Chandrika Singh, however, was acquitted.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
He was brother in law of the deceased Mister Mian.
Both the learned Trial Judge as also the High Court arrived at a finding of fact that such an offence had been companymitted.
They carried the company with injured Mister.
Altercations and abuses thereafter followed.
Thereafter, they took away the company in which Mister Mian was lying.
Devi Dayal Singh and Sarjug Singh were said to be having companyntrymade pistols with them.
Chuta Singh, subsequently named as Chandrika Singh, allegedly had a rifle with him and Mathura Singh had a double barrel gun.
His presence is also number disputed as against him also a first information report was lodged.
His evidence, however, was number found to be reliable.
A First Information Report was lodged by one Md. Saudagar on 14.1.1979 at about 9 p.m. in regard to an incident which is said to have taken place at about 7 p.m. on the same day, alleging that when he along with his companyvillagers Syeduddin Nut PW 2 , Alauddin Nut PW 3 , Deo Nath Paswan PW 9 and Lakhan Paswan since deceased were returning from Rajghat Mela, the accused Devi Dayal Singh, Mathura Singh, Sarjug Singh and Chuta Singh met them at the Alang in Adpakhanda whereupon Syeduddin asked the accused as regard their identity to which one of them replied that he was his father.
He was arrested by the Superintendent of Police on the same day.
B. SINHA, J The Appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna dated 24.2.1988 affirming the judgment of companyviction and sentence dated 29th November, 1986 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, IV, Patna in Sessions Trial No.
