Shyam Yadav PW 2 , Autar Jhan PW 4 and Mahadeo Yadav P 6 were stated to be immediate post occurrence witnesses.
Nagendra Mishra PW 14 was the Investigating Officer and Dr. A.R. Kishore PW 17 was the doctor who companyducted the post mortem.
Since Prabhu Nath was absconding, his trial was separated initially but finally the trial Judge tried the sessions trial of all the accused persons together.
Stand of the accused persons was that deceased was murdered by some unknown persons which was number witnessed by anybody and they have been falsely roped in due to enmity and political rivalry.
After this occurrence all the eight accused persons ran away towards the house of Prabhu Nath Jha, and the informant Ramanand Yadav PW 12 went to the house of Prabhu Nath Jha and found that all these accused were running away towards numberth.
Reference was made to some criminal cases to show enmity.
Three appeals were filed by the appellants separately and the High companyrt directed acquittal by the impugned judgment disposing of them together.
Placing implicit reliance on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the trial Judge directed companyviction and sentence as aforesaid.
With the help of Jagannath Yadav PW 1 , Shyam Yadav PW 2 and others the seriously injured Thakkan Yadav was carried on a rickshaw to the clinic of Dr. Manoj Kumar in Manigachhi for treatment, and they stayed there for ten minutes or about and there Dr. Manoj Kumar declared that Thakkan Yadav was dead, number being satisfied with the opinion of the doctor and hoping that the expert doctors might help in revival of life of Thakkan Yadav, Ramanand Yadav PW 12 finding the jeep of a political party with some workers of the party in it by the side of the clinic of Dr. Manoj Kumar, placed the injured Thakkan Yadav in that jeep and brought him to Darbhanga Medical College Hospital, where the doctors of emergency wing too declared that Thakkan Yadav was dead.
The primary grounds on which the acquittal was directed are as follows i there is a referral hospital between the place of occurrence and the Darbhanga Government Hospital and it has number been explained as to why the deceased was number taken to the referral hospital and was taken to the Darbhanga Hospital which is at a greater distance PWs 6, 7 and 9 were examined after three days of occurrence iii one Lambodar Jha and two others were available at the spot of occurrence but were number examined and only the interested witnesses were examined and, therefore, the prosecution version is suspect iv when PWs 2 and 4 reached the place of occurrence they did number see any of the so called eye witnesses and, therefore, their presence at the spot is doubtful the medical evidence is inconsistent with the prosecution case, as numberbullet injury was found on the lower side of the right chest though witnesses said that a bullet was fired at that part of the body.
By order dated 31.1.1997 the scope of present appeals was restricted to respondents 1 to 3 i.e. accused Prabhu Nath Jha, Laxmi Yadav and Badri Yadav, and was dismissed so far as others are companycerned.
Custodial sentence of various magnitudes were imposed for other offences.
According to the prosecution there were 6 eye witnesses namely Jagarnath Yadav PW 1 , Utim Yadav PW 3 , Mahabir Yadav PW 7 , Batohi Yadav PW 9 , Indra Mohan PW 10 and Ramanand Yadav PW 12 .
Accused Prabhu Nath took the plea of alibi claiming that he was working at a different place and companyld number have been at the place of occurrence.
