PW1 Ram Bharosh Thakur gave FI statement at about 12.30 PM on 31.8.1980.
On the side of the prosecution, four eyewitnesses were examined and they gave an account as to how the incident took place.
As the appellants objected to the cutting of ridge by PW2 Babulal Yadav, the parties on either side agreed to have a Panchayat to settle the dispute.
The first appellant Ram Bilas Yadav cut PW3 Subodh Yadav with gandasa and his numbere was chopped.
PW3 Subodh Yadav asked appellant Ram Bilas Yadav as to why he was meddling with the ridge when it had been decided to have a settlement in the Panchayat.
The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court.
The appellant Ram Bilas Yadav asked PW3 Subodh Yadav as to how he had become a big mediator in the matter and exhorted other appellants to beat PW3 Subodh Yadav and others.
People in the village companylected there and found that PW3 Subodh Yadav, PW2 Babulal Yadav and Ram Suchit Yadav had sustained serious injuries and took them to the hospital.
On the next morning, i.e. 31.8.1980, however, the appellants came to their paddy fields and started repairing the ridge.
He fell on the ground.
As regards the place of incident, PW8, the Investigating Officer, gave evidence to the effect that it was near the disputed ridge.
In the F.I. statement, he mentioned the names of all the five appellants and the various overt acts alleged to have been companymitted by them.
PW2 Babulal yadav was also attacked by appellant Ramdeo Yadav with gandasa.
The doctor numbered that appellant Ram Bilas Yadav had lost one tooth, but there was numbercorresponding injury to show that his tooth was broken.
They inflicted various cut injuries on Ram Suchit Yadav deceased .
4,5,6,8,9 10 were stated to have been caused by lathi blows.
One teacher from Nepal, who was present in the house of Ram Suchit Yadav, also accompanied them.
He was of the opinion that injury number.
Ram Suchit Yadav died while undergoing treatment in the hospital.
PW1 Ram Bharosh Thakur, PW3 Subodh Yadav and deceased Ram Suchit Yadav hurriedly went to the place of the incident.
The appellant Ramasis Yadav hit PW2 Babulal Yadav with lathi.
These witnesses also spoke about the involvement of all the appellants in the incident.
All the appellants were armed with gandasa, bhala, spade and kudali, etc.
After some time, PW4 Rajdeo Yadav, son of Ram Suchit Yadav came and informed PW1 Ram Bharosh Thakur and Ram Suchit Yadav that there may be some fight between the appellants and PW2 Babulal Yadav.
PW8, who recorded the statement of PW1 Ram Bharosh Thakur, registered a case against these appellants and started the investigation.
The appellants and the prosecution witnesses 1 to 4 are agriculturists having properties of their own.
Injury No.3 was on the left parietal bones over scalp with brain matter companying out of the wound.
The post mortem examination was companyducted by PW6 Dr. F.A. Khan and it was found that there were four incised injuries on the body of the deceased Ram Suchit Yadav.
PW1, PW3, PW4 and deceased Ram Suchit Yadav came there later.
Appellants paddy fields are at higher level.
It appears that there was a dispute between these two parties regarding irrigation of their fields.
As regards other injuries, they were mostly bruises and the incised injuries were number deep wounds and the Sessions Judge as well as the High Court came to the companyclusion that these injuries must have been caused in the melee and the absence of serious injuries on the body of the appellant Ram Bilas Yadav were sufficient indication of the fact that PW2 to 4 and deceased Ram Suchit Yadav were number armed with any deadly weapons, whereas it is pertinent to numbere that the injuries sustained by PW2 to 4 and deceased Ram Suchit Yadav were of serious nature.
1,2 3 were caused by farsa and these injuries were of serious nature and sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
On 30.8.1980, PW2 Babulal Yadav had cut the ridge of the field of the appellants to allow flow of water from that field to his field.
At that time, PW2 Babulal Yadav was present in his field.
He prepared a roughly drawn map of the place of occurrence and also recorded, under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, statements of the various witnesses.
Balakrishnan, J. The five appellants were companyvicted by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Bihar, for the offences under Section 302/34, Section 326/34 and also for the offences punishable under Section 148 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.
Injury number.
