A 1, getting angered by this obstruction caused by the deceased, the first accused allegedly called the appellant and accused No.
On hearing this shout, it is stated that the appellant and A 3 Kustam came to the spot armed with firearms, appellant carrying pistol and Kustam carrying a musket.
The appellant and his brother Kustam A 3 were also charged for an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to 3 years R.I. on that charge.
On the said charges as stated above, the three accused persons were companyvicted.
Thereafter the prosecution case is that the accused persons went away from the place of incident.
On appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Patna has companyfirmed the said companyviction and sentence.
On their arrival, their father A 1 allegedly exhorted them to kill Manir.
On hearing the sound of firing, it is stated, that the deceaseds mother PW 7 and other members of the deceaseds family came there at which time the prosecution states that the appellant herein fired two shots one of which grazed the mother in law PW 7 and PW 4 the other hit the wall of the house.
He along with his father A 1 and his younger brother A 3 was charged for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and having found guilty was sentenced to imprisonment for life on that charge.
It is the further case of the prosecution that on this exhortation the 3rd accused fired from his musket which hit the chest of Manir companysequent to which injury, he died, this was numbericed by deceaseds wife PW 9.
It is the further case of the prosecution that on 14.6.1996 in the morning at about 9 a.m. the A 1 was taking a pumping set in a bullock cart for irrigating his land and when the art reached near the house of one Sheikh Madhu the deceased who was there asked A 1 number to use the pump for irrigating the land until the dispute as to the land is settled and at that time the deceased also stopped the bullock cart.
3 shouting that the deceased is stopping his cart.
Santosh Hegde, J. The appellant before us was Accused No.
2 before the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka.
All the three accused persons preferred the above numbered criminal appeal before this Court and this Court as per its order dated 9.2.2001 dismissed the appeal so far as it companycerned Hazi Shariff A 1 and Kustam Khurshid A 3 , while numberice was issued in regard to appeal filed by the present appellant and on return of the said numberice after hearing the parties the leave was granted on 23.4.2001, therefore, the appeal of the present appellant alone as against the judgment of the High Court is before us.
