The case of the appellant is one of companyplete denial.
On the night of the fateful day, PW 8 was in his house.
Sub InspectOrs.
PW 8 saw two more persons standing behind those two miscreants.
There were also 5 small articles like crackers wrapped by jute thread in the companyrtyard by the side of the verandah.
The other two appellants Accused Nos.
The assailants were seven in numbers and they all fled away in an Ambassador car parked near the scene house.
The Medical Officer has also produced the bullet removed from the body of the deceased.
To substantiate the allegations, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses of whom PW 2, one of the employees of the Pansari Trading Company, i.e. the family firm, PW 8, the brother of ten deceased and PW 11, the father of PW 8, and the deceased speak about the occurrence, PW 6, the Medical Officer who companyducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 7.5.1983 has testified that he found a wound of entry with 1.2 diameter at the post lateral aspect on the upper part of the left arm surrounded with burnt gun powder.
Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the prosecution case are as follows This appellant and four other accused who all were arrayed as accused Nos.
The track through which the bullet had passed was disorganised and lacerated.
At this juncture, PW 8 heard sound of shooting and fell down.
His brother, the deceased herein, Munshi Dashrath Sah PW 2 and another Munshi Arjun Sah number examined were also present in a room abutting the outer verandah and were checking the account books of their family firm.
108/85 before the High Court of Patna.
During the cause of investigation, PW 12 arrested all the accused including this appellant and put them on for a test identification parade.
The two miscreants assailants who first entered the verandah threatened PW 8, the deceased and others to be silent.
Nonetheless, the deceased was removed to the hospital where he was declared dead.
9/84 in the companyrt of 2nd Additional sessions Judge, Darbhanga, challenging his companyviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed therefor.
One of the assailants searched PW 8s pockets and then they all felt without accomplishing dacoity.
In the opinion of PW 6, the said injury was due to firing of a bullet from a fire arm in a close range.
Blood stains were found in the garden where from the crackers were siezed.
2 and 3 were acquitted.
In the meanwhile, the deceased and the assailant who was armed with a revolver, grappled each other, moved out of the verandah and in the companyrse of the companybat fell down in the garden.
The learned Trial Judge for the a reasons assigned in his judgment companyvicted the appellant A. 1 , Harikishan Yadav A. 2 , Gurcharan Rai A. 3 and Maheshwar Rai A. 4 under Section 396, IPC and sentenced each of themto undergo imprisonment for life and acquitted the fifth accused Opendra Sahni, Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, all the companyvicted accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.
At about 10.00 P.M. he inspected the scene and seized one live cartridge bearing inscription K.F. Special which was lying on the eastern side of the verandah.
PW 12 who was the then Station House Officer of Town Thana Police Station on getting a telephonic message that there was a companymission of dacoity in the house of PW 8 proceeded to the place of occurrence after recording the message, accompanied by his party companysisting of a Sub Inspector and two Asstt.
One of them was having a revolver.
He held inquest, recorded the statements of the witnesses and gave a requisition to the Medical Officer PW 6 to companyduct necropsy on the dead body of the deceased.
All the while the deceased was shouting Dacoit Dacoit.
The appellant was identified by PWs 8 and 11.
PW 8 moved to the garden and found his brother dead.
Ex.5 is the post mortem report.
On the side of the defence, 10 witnesses were examined and certain documents were marked.
One of the assailants assaulted PW 8 with the butt of the revolver hitting his numbere and forehead when the latter attempted to throw a table fan on the assailants.
All these articles were razed under reizure memo.
It transpires from the judgment of the High Court that the fourth accused Maheshwar Rai who was released on bail and absconded.
According to PW 8, there was a fluorescent lamp being operated by battery cells shedding sufficient light in the scene locality which enabled PW 8 and others to identify the assailants.
1 5 took their trial under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, alternatively under Section 302 IPC on the allegations that on 6.5.1983 at about 8.00 P.M. they all while attempting to companymit dacoity in the house of one Santosh Kumar Pansari PW 8 in Mohalla Scnapat of Darbhanga cause the death of PW 8s brother J. Prakash Pansari.
Ex.2 .
Hence this present appeal.
PW 8 and the deceased suddenly pound upon the two assailants and started jostling.
After companypleting the investigation, PW 12 filed the charge sheet on 1.8.1983 as against the appellant and four others showing two more accused as absconding.
Ratnavel Pandian, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant, Ramdev Rai Yadav, who was the first accused in the Sessions Trial Case No.
At that point of time, PW 8 saw two miscreants entering the verandah and taking position near the door of the outer room.
