During the pendency of the trial, accused Dipender Tiwary was held juvenile, his case was separated and sent to the Juvenile Justice Court.
The sixth accused Kamal Narain Singh is absconding against which permanent Warrant of Arrest in red ink has been issued.
Hence, he stated that FIR was lodged at about 900 PM.
Out of the two unnamed assailants, one was named as Rajesh Sharma and the name of the other assailant was never known.
Criminal Appeal No.1033 of 2010 filed by the informant and Criminal Appeal No.1037 of 2010 filed by the State, are against the acquittal of the accused Rajesh Singh.
The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, they pleaded number guilty and claimed for trial.
By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge of the High Court, while allowing the appeal of one of the accused Rajesh Singh and acquitting him, dismissed the appeals of the other four accused, namely, Laloo Tiwary, Lala Tiwary, Uma Shankar Tiwary and Pramod Tiwary and upheld their companyviction and sentence as awarded by the Trial Court.
Criminal Appeal Nos.543 545 of 2013 are filed by the aforesaid four accused against their companyviction and sentence by the two Courts below and Criminal Appeal Nos.1034 1036 of 2010 are filed by the informant Bimla Devi W o late Lalan Tiwary, for enhancement of the sentence of these accused.
However, in appeal the High Court pointed out that the informant neither named accused Rajesh Singh in the fardbeyan number in the police statement.
PW3 was the daughter of the deceased Kashi Nath Tiwary, PW4 was the daughter of deceased Rajendra Prasad Tiwary Lallan Tiwary, and PW6 informant was the wife of deceased Lallan Tiwary.
Four different appeals were filed before the High Court by five accused persons against the aforesaid companyviction order.
After investigation was companycluded, the Investigation Officer submitted charge sheet against accused Uma Shankar Tiwary, Laloo Tiwary, Kamal Narain Singh, Dipendra Tiwary Torhi, Pramod Tiwary and Lala Tiwary, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 452, 379, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC for short and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The Trial Court companyvicted Uma Shankar Tiwary, Laloo Tiwary, Pramod Tiwary, Lala Tiwary, Rajesh Singh and Kamal Narain Singh for offences under Sections 302/34, 201, 148 and 452 of IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, further rigorous imprisonment for four year for offence under Section 201, imprisonment of four years for offence under Section 452 and rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323 IPC.
The High Court, thus, deemed it proper to give benefit of doubt to the accused Rajesh Singh.
The four related witnesses in their cross examination stated that they had named Rajesh Singh as one of the accused in the FIR and the police statement.
Moreover, the prosecution case was supported by six strong and companyent eye witnesses, which was further companyroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery memos.
The High Court further stated that the other independent witnesses did number identify Rajesh Singh in the Court, even when they identified the other four accused.
Out of the six material eye witnesses, three were related to the accused.
Accused persons appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.543 545 of 2013 argued on the same grounds which were categorically dealt with in details by the High Court which are mainly two Firstly, that the FIR was number sent to the Court within time and so the companyrect version had number companye out Secondly, that there exists cutting overwriting in the inquest report as, initially, the name of the informant was numbered as Bunni Kumari daughter of Bishwa Nath Kumar, but subsequently it was erased and in its place, name of Bimla Devi wife of Lallan Tiwary was written.
The brief facts necessary to dispose of these appeals are that on 20.12.1998 at 430 PM, the informant Bimla Devi, resident of Village Mangara, P.S. Karakat, District Rohtas, recorded her statement fardbeyan at P.S. Karakat, alleging that at 200 PM, her father in law Kashi Nath Tiwary and her husband Lallan Tiwary were shot dead at their house by the assailants, namely, Uma Shankar Tiwary, Laloo Tiwary, Pramod Tiwary, Lala Tiwary amd Dipendra Tiwary Turhi and 2 other unnamed assailants.
Uma Shankar Tiwary, Laloo Tiwary and Pramod Tiwary were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10000/ each.
The High Court perused the testimony of PW9, who is the Investigating Officer, wherein it was deposed that he recorded the statement fardbeyan at 430 PM, thereafter he went to the place of incident and the body of deceased Kashi Nath Tiwary was recovered from the well after one hour of his arrival, and the inquest and other proceedings were companyducted.
The High Court allowed the appeal of accused Rajesh Singh and acquitted him of all the charges.
Hence, his companyviction was set aside and he was acquitted of all the charges.
The Trial Court finding enough evidence against accused Rajesh Singh, companyvicted him for the double murder.
Thereafter a supplementary charge sheet was submitted against accused Rajesh Kumar Singh under the aforesaid sections and also under Section 354 of IPC.
It was only after about two years that the accused Rajesh Singh was named before the Court.
As against the other accused, the High Court was companyvinced that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
However, in each of the witnesses statements, the name of the respondent Rajesh Singh does number appear until testimony before the Court.
The above two arguments were also pleaded before the Trial Court as well as the High Court, and both the Courts below denied the averments and reasoned that the two errors did number prejudice the investigation.
However, the companyviction of other four accused, namely, Uma Shankar Tiwary, Laloo Tiwary, Pramod Tiwary and Lala Tiwary was upheld by the High Court and their appeals were dismissed.
The other three eye witnesses, i.e. PW1, PW2 and PW7, were from the village where the occurrence took place and they happened to be chance witnesses.
The case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions.
Thus, there is numberinfirmity in the High Courts order that the respondent accused Rajesh Singh is entitled to benefit of doubt as the prosecution has number been able to bring home the charge against him.
However, the High Court pointed out that accused Rajesh Singh was numberhere named in the FIR or the Police statement and his alleged role was testified only at the trial stage, after about more than 2 years of the incident.
Upon perusal of the records, especially the testimony of the eye witnesses, we find numberinfirmity in the reasoning of the High Court.
The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 13.05.2002, companyvicted the accused and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life.
Moreover, if the testimony of the other three unrelated witnesses is perused, numbere of the witnesses named the respondent Rajesh Singh directly and they did number even identify accused Rajesh Singh in the Court at the time of trial while they specifically recognized the other accused present in the Court.
However, numberexplanation can be gathered as to how one name companyld be missed when all the other five accused were named categorically.
The dead body of Kashi Nath Tiwary was dumped into the well located in front of their house.
The informant further alleged that the accused also snatched away the jewellery of the informant, her daughter and her sister in law.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. These appeals have been filed against a companymon judgment and order dated 20.12.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos.371, 386, 441 and 447 of 2002.
