The High Court found his companyduct unnatural because 1 instead of rushing back to his village which was nearby, to inform his relatives and friends, he went to Begusarai 2 even after reaching Begusarai he did number go to Boudhus house to inform his widow and other family members about the incident and 3 instead of rushing to the police station, he went to his brother in laws house to get a companyplaint written by him.
The High Court doubted his evidence and also the prosecution case as a whole for the reason that the companyplaint which was written down by the brother in law of PW 7 was number signed by the brother in law, even though he was present when it was presented at the police station.
The High Court found that PW 7 had made material improvements as regards the number of shots fired by the accused, the parts of bodies of Boudhu and Mangal on which injuries were caused by the and the weapons with which the accused had caused those injuries.
The High Court also disbelieved their evidence on the ground that numberindependent witnesses from the locality were examined by the prosecution and that indicated, that the eye witnesses were selected or got up witnesses.
The trial companyrt believed their presence at the time and place of the incident.
He had also stated that injuries were caused to them by firing a shot and by giving katta blows.
Boudhu and Mangal who were walking ahead of subhash became their Targets.
At about 9O clock, when they were passing by the bandh embankment near village Koria Haibatpur, accused Ram Padarath, Ram Susgarath, Ramsubodh, Bipin, Dilip absconding who were armed with pistols and Katta attacked them, because of the previous enmity with the informant and his brother.
Dr. Bhagat PW 4 who had done the post mortem examination had found three injuries on him.
The evidence of Navin Rai PW 1 was also disbelieved on the ground that if he had really gone to Koria Chowk for supplying milk to Siyaram Singh then he would have carried the empty vessel while returning but numbersuch vessel was produced by him before the police.
The prosecution examined subhash PW 7 Navia Rai PW 1 , vijay Kumar PW 2 , Biso Kumar PW 8 and Lal Kunwar PW 11 as eye witnesses.
Aggrieved by their companyviction and the sentence imposed upon them they filed an appeal before the High Court.
The evidence of Bisho Kunwar PW 8 was disbelieved by the High Court also on the ground that if he had really gone to take medicine from the doctor at Koria Haibatpur then his name would have found place in the register maintained by the Doctor and a prescription of medicine would have been given to him.
Apart from the Improbabilities referred to earlier, viz that he was walking behind his two brothers at some distance and that he would number have been spared by the accused if he was really with his two brothers, the other improbabilities found by the High Court were 1 that subhash would number have failed to inquire from his two brothers the reason why he was taken to Begusarai 2 if they were really going to Begusarai then they would have carried some money with them but numbermoney was found from the pockets of Boudhu and Mangal and 3 the accused would number have failed to prevent Subhash from runing away by firing a shot at hi.
With respect to the injury found on the thigh of Mangal the eye witnesses had stated that it was caused by a shot fired by Dilip when he was running away from that place.
After walking a few steps he fell down in a nearby field where he was given a blow by Ram Sugarath with a katta on his head.
The prosecution case as that on 29.1.86, subhash Kunwar informant and his brother Rambilas Boudhu deceased and Mangal deceased left village Basudevpur in the morning for going to Begusarai.
As the witness had number produced the prescription number his name appeared in the register, it was highly doubtful if he had really gone to take medicine as stated by him.
Subhash who was walking behind his two brothers was able to run away from that place before he companyld be attacked.
After companyering some distance he fell down and at that time ram subodh Respondent No.2 Vipin and Ram Sugarath attacked him by giving katta blows and killed him.
The High Court also found his evidence improbable on the ground that if he had really gone along with his brothers then the accused would number have spared him.
On the basis of this companyplaint an offence was registered against all the five accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC and against Ram Padarath and Dilip for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Thus he had stated the weapons with which injuries were caused to his two brothers.
PW 7 and Mangal were staying at Basudevpur and Boudhu was staying at Begusarai.
By stating that his brothers were injured by the accused by firing a short he did number mean that only one shot was fired, as wrongly understood by the High Court.
The High Court disbelieved the evidence PW 7 also because it found that what he had deposed was improbable, his companyduct was unnatural and he had made material improvements while giving evidence.
As regards the 3rd injury the doctor had stated that it companyld have been caused by a weapon like katta.
As accused Dilip and Ramsugarath were found absconding, the trial proceeded against the remaining three accused.
The shot fired by Ram Padarath Respondent No.1 injured Boudhu.
Thus according to the medical evidence there was numberinjury on the neck of Boudhu which companyld have been caused by a katta blow.
On seeing the assault on his two brothers, he had started running away from the place.
The eye witnesses had deposed that a katta blow was given by accused Ram Sugarath above the back side of neck of Boudhu.
Unless Boudhu had earlier came to Basudevpur, as stated by PW 7, they companyld number have been together at Koria Haibatpur.
The High Court rejected the evidence of PWs.
It was number his version that by one shot both his brothers were injured.
He might number have seen at that time how many katta blows were given by the accused to his two brothers and on which parts of their bodies injuries were caused.
The claim of PWs.
He died immediately.
The evidence of PW 7 was companysidered improbable also on the ground that the accused would number have failed to prevent subhash from running away by firing a shot at him.
2,7 and 11, also on the ground that they were partisan witnesses.
But he had stated in the FIR that while he was going from Basudevpur to Begusarai along with his two brothers and while they were passing by the embankment near Koria Haibatpur, the accused had attacked his two brothers who were walking ahead of him.
Mangal who had started running away from that place shouting Bachao Bachao was hit by a shot fired by Dilip.
1 and 3 to have witnessed the incident was doubted on the ground that their names were number disclosed as eye witnesses in the FIR.
407 of 1987.
For causing death of Mangal all the three were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and for the murder of Boudhu accused Ram Padarath was sentenced to death and the other two were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
He straight went to Begusarai, after catching a bus on the way, got a companyplaint written by his brother in law who was an advocate and presented it at Begusarai police Station.
As Ram Padarath, Respondent No.1 was sentenced to death, a reference was also made to the High Court for companyfirming his death sentence.
It held that the evidence on record was sufficient to show that relations between them and the accused were inimical and even criminal proceedings were pending between them.
NANAVATI.
The High Court rejected the reference, allowed the appeal filed by the companyvicted accused and acquitted them.
J. Both these appeals are filed by the State of Bihar against the companymon judgment of the Patna High Court in death Reference No.7 of 1987 and Criminal Appeal No.
Two were bullet wounds and 3rd was an incised wound on the vertax.
