The deceased Ram Parvesh Yadav was carrying on timber business and was running a saw mill at Hilsa.
He further companyroborates the presence of Sidheshwar Prasad at the time when the assailants resorted to firing upon Ram Parvesh Yadav.
After loading the timber, they returned from there and reached west of village Shekhopur at about 3.30 p.m. Suddenly, the three appellants and two other unknown persons came out from the bushes and started firing with companyntry made pistol and rifle.
The appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court, which affirmed the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and dismissed the appeal.
He has further deposed that while returning at about 3.00 4.00 p.m., when they reached near village Shekhopur, two three people suddenly appeared and started firing from their weapons.
The post mortem examination companyducted on the body of the deceased Ram Pravesh Yadav revealed that he had sustained large number of gunshot injuries.
Sidheshwar Prasad was standing nearby and on enquiry he informed him that on account of number payment of rangdari tax, Ramashray Yadav, Tanikan Yadav and Rajdeo Yadav had killed his brother Ram Parvesh Yadav by causing gunshot injuries.
He companyroborates the fact that the incident took place at about 3.00 4.00 p.m. near village Shekhopur when two three persons suddenly appeared and started firing upon the tractor.
PW.5 Arjun Prasad stated that at about 3.30 p.m. on 10.4.1998, he was returning from village Tamara and when he reached near Lehra Dak river, he heard sound of several gunshots being fired.
P.C. and companypleting other formalities submitted charge sheet against the three appellants.
In his opinion, death had occurred 16 to 24 hours prior to the holding of post mortem examination.
When companyfronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.
The accused chased Ram Parvesh Yadav and after companyering some distance reached near him and fired number of shots, which hit him and he fell down dead.
He also companyroborates the fact that he saw Ram Parvesh Yadav being hit by gunshots and falling down dead towards eastern side of the tractor.
When they were returning to village Hilsa at about 3.00 4.00 p.m. and had reached near village Shekhopur, two three people whom he companyld number recognize, came there and started firing upon the tractor.
Shri B.B. Singh, learned companynsel for the State, has, on the other hand, submitted that the testimony of PW.12 Sidheshwar Prasad finds ample companyroboration from the testimony of PW.3 Karu Beldar and PW.5 Arjun Prasad, who are independent witnesses.
PW.5 had number seen the incident but he heard the sound of gunshots and rushed to the place of occurrence where he saw the deceased lying in a badly injured companydition and Sidheshwar Prasad who was standing nearby narrated the incident to him.
P.C., wherein he had mentioned that the three appellants namely, Ramashray Yadav, Tanikan Yadav and Rajdeo Yadav were present amongst the assailants and had fired from companyntry made pistol and rifle upon the deceased, he denied to have given any such statement, though he admitted that the police had recorded his statement at the police station.
The appellants pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
On 10.4.1998, the deceased Ram Parvesh Yadav along with his brother PW.12 Sidheshwar Prasad and some others went on a tractor trolley to bring timber from village Dabaul.
S.I. Prabhu Nath Singh companymenced investigation of the case and after recording statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.
Sidheshwar Prasad gave his fard bayan to S.I. Deo Nath Bhagat, of Police Station, Hilsa at about 5.00 p.m. The formal FIR of the incident was registered at the Police Station at 7.30 p.m. on the basis of which Crime Case No.139 of 1998 was registered.
P.C. that the accused appellants used to demand rangdari tax Goonda Tax from the deceased and on account of number payment thereof, they had companymitted his murder.
This shows the motive for companymission of crime and also explains the reason why as many as 7 witnesses turned hostile and even PW.3, Karu Beldar who was driving the tractor, did number mention the names of the appellants in his deposition in Court, though they were named and were assigned the specific role of causing gunshot injuries in his statement under Section 161 Cr.
Except for mentioning the names of the three appellants, he has companypletely companyroborated the prosecution version of the incident.
He along with others rushed towards Mahua Khandha and saw one person lying on the ground who had received large number of injuries.
Three bullets were found inside the body which were taken out.
Learned companynsel for the appellants has submitted that as many as 7 witnesses examined by the prosecution had turned hostile.
In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses, out of whom 7 witnesses turned hostile.
He also denied to have stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.
PW.12 Sidheshwar Prasad, brother of the deceased who had accompanied him on the tractor to village Dabaul for bringing the timber, gave the companyplete version of the incident in his deposition in Court.
The appellants were bullies or goondas of the locality and they used to demand rangdari tax Goonda Tax from his brother, but he refused to pay the same and due to this reason, the appellants wanted to teach him a lesson.
On enquiry, he told him that on account of number payment of rangdari tax, appellants Ramashray Yadav, Tanikan Yadav and Rajdeo Yadav had killed his brother Ram Parvesh Yadav by firing upon him.
He along with others ran towards that side and saw a person lying badly injured in Mahua Khandha and PW.12 Sidheshwar Prasad was standing there.
The learned Sessions Judge believed the case of the prosecution and companyvicted all the three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, whereunder sentence of imprisonment for life and a sentence of three years R.I. respectively were awarded.
P.C. PW.3 Karu Beldar has stated that the deceased Ram Parvesh Yadav and Sidheshwar Prasad had gone to village Dabaul to bring timber and he was driving the tractor.
The appellants, Ramashray Yadav A 1 , Tanikan Yadav A 2 and Rajdeo Yadav A 3 , were bullies or goondas of the locality and they used to demand rangdari tax Goonda Tax from the deceased, but he refused to pay the same.
PW.14 Dr. S.B. Singh had companyducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased at 7.30 a.m. on 11.4.1998 and had prepared the post mortem report.
The labourers, the driver of the tractor and Ram Parvesh Yadav jumped from the tractor and started running towards eastern side.
Due to this reason, the appellants were hostile to the deceased and wanted to teach him a lesson.
PW.3 Karu Beldar was the driver of the tractor.
He companyroborates the fact that PW.12 Sidheswar Prasad had also gone with the deceased Ram Parvesh Yadav to village Dabaul for bringing timber on a tractor of which he was the driver.
He jumped from the tractor and ran away.
It needs examination whether the testimony of PW.5 Arjun Prasad can be used as a companyroborative piece of evidence.
He also saw that Ram Parvesh Yadav had run towards eastern side, where he received gunshot injuries and fell down dead.
The case of the prosecution may be stated in brief.
He deposed that he had driven the tractor trolley on which Ram Parvesh Yadav and Sidheshwar Prasad had gone to village Dabaul for bringing timber.
P. MATHUR, J. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.1.2004 of Patna High Court, by which the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and their companyviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act and the sentence of imprisonment for life under the first companynt and three years R.I. under the second companynt imposed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda, in Sessions Trial No.612 of 1998 were affirmed.
PW.5 Arjun Prasad has deposed that he was returning from village Tamara at about 3.30 p.m. on 10.4.1998 and when he reached near river Lehra Dak, he heard sound of several gunshots.
Only PW.12, Sidheshwar Prasad, who is the brother of the deceased, had supported the prosecution case and in these circumstances, it was highly unsafe to record the companyviction of the appellants on the solitary testimony of a witness who is an interested witness, being brother of the deceased.
Ram Parvesh Yadav ran towards eastern side, but after receiving gunshot injuries he fell down and died on the spot.
