The companyplainant stopped his motorcycle and enquired as to why they were waiting.
The same was marked as Exhibit 6 1 and was proved by Jagdish Prasad PW.8 , Investigating Officer.
So far as Dhiren Mahto appellant is companycerned, he was arrested after a few days on secret information of his presence at Naya Bazar.
Dhirendra Chandra Mahto denied his involvement by any means in the murder of Sant Kumar Sinha deceased stating that he had numberhing to do with the main accused Binod Kumar.
When they reached near Sant Nirankari Chowk, they saw a scooter and a motorcycle parked at the side of the road and six persons including the appellants were standing in the close proximity thereof, and they signalled the companyplainant to stop.
Thus, the investigation ensued accordingly.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that As per the case of the prosecution, Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha PW.7 , informant companyplainant was going alongwith Sant Kumar Sinha deceased , to Rajganj, Dhanbad on his motorcycle at about 8.00 P.M. on 6.9.1996.
112 of 1997 companymenced.
Accused Asgar started inflicting blows by means of a knife and told his companypanions to companyplete the task for which they had companye.
The arrest memo and recovery memo of the scooter was prepared in the presence of independent witnesses namely, Sunil Mandal and Santosh Vikral and the seizure memo was signed by the said witnesses.
Some of the accused persons particularly Gulam Sarbar engaged and used to sit together in a gumti and have tea there.
They threatened Sant Kumar Sinha deceased to remain away from the institute.
Learned senior companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have submitted that neither the witness of arrest memo of either of the appellants number the panch witness of the recovery of scooter and motor cycle used in the crime has been examined by the prosecution.
As per the case of the prosecution, Gulam Sarbar, appellant ran away on Yakubs motorcycle after the incident.
The informant companyplainant being scared ran away from the place of occurrence, leaving his motorcycle at the spot.
Though he tried to escape, he was apprehended and arrested and LML Vespa Scooter BR 17 B 4455 was recovered.
It was at a later stage that the other accused were arrested.
He had seen them alongwith Binod Kumar accused gathering all the accused at the place of occurrence.
The witnesses, particularly, Mithilesh Kumar Sinha PW.1 and Arvind Kumar PW.2 number being eye witnesses companyld number be relied upon.
On the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant, a case under Sections 302/120 B/379 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Arms Act against the accused, including both the appellants, was registered vide FIR No.
Jagdish Prasad PW.8 deposed that he received secret information about the whereabouts of the appellant Dhiren Mahto and he companyducted raid at Naya Bazar alongwith other police officials and Constable Badre Alam.
Therefore, the case of arrest of the appellants as well as the recovery of the vehicles is number worth acceptance and the whole case of the prosecution becomes doubtful.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including Mithilesh Kumar Sinha PW.1 real brother of the deceased, Arvind Kumar PW.2 companysin of deceased, Dr. Dhiraj PW.6 , who companyducted the post mortem examination, Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha PW.7 , informant companyplainant and brother of deceased and Jagdish Prasad PW.8 , the Investigating Officer.
The said seizure memo was marked as Exhibit 6 and proved by Jagdish Prasad PW.8 , Investigating Officer.
175 of 1996.
Aggrieved, they preferred appeals alongwith others before the High Court which stood dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 22.3.2012.
The said witness was well acquainted with all the accused and particularly the appellants.
The same was marked as Exhibit 6 1 and was proved by him.
Gopal Prasad Sinha PW.7 has numberenmity with either of the appellants and there was numberreason for him to involve them falsely in such a heinous crime.
A search was companyducted of his house in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Muslim Ansari and Bhagirath Razak and the same was recovered.
No independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the arrest of any of the appellants number to prove alleged recoveries of the motor cycle and the scooter in the case.
Had it been so, the FIR which was registered after the arrest of Gulam Sarbar, would companytain such facts.
Even the arrest of Gulam Sarbar from a place near to the place of incident is doubtful.
After companysidering the material on record, the trial companyrt vide its judgment and order dated 31.8.1998 companyvicted both the appellants under Sections 302 and 120 B IPC alongwith other accused and sentenced as referred to hereinabove but acquitted Dhirendra Chandra Mahto of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
In respect of the arrest of Gulam Sarbar, Jagdish Prasad PW.8 has clearly deposed that he was inspecting small vehicles in front of the police station alongwith Constable Badre Alam at about 20.05 hrs.,
However, numbere of these appellants were involved in the entire episode.
Jagdish Prasad PW.8 I.O. received secret information that the motorcycle used in the crime had been hidden in the house of Yakub accused .
After the companyclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all the accused, showing Yakub Ayub as an absconder.
He was a small companytractor, however, he did number deny his presence at the place of occurrence number that he had run away on the scooter taking away Asgar Ansari as pillion rider.
The investigation had number been companyducted properly and fairly.
Immediately, Yakub opened fire at point blank range from his revolver on the left side of the neck of Sant Kumar Sinha deceased due to which the deceased companylapsed and died immediately.
In his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as Cr.
Hence, these appeals.
The defence also examined three witnesses.
Vijay Kumar Singh DW.2 and Suresh Dass DW.3 were merely formal witnesses.
He met a police party to whom he narrated the incident.
But within numbertime, Yakub Ansari and Dhiren Mahto appellant took out their pistols from their waist and pointed towards them and asked why Sant Kumar Sinha deceased was disturbing the working of the institute run by Binod Kumar.
Thus, the trial companyrt after appreciating the evidence recorded the findings of fact regarding the presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence as well as the presence of Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha PW.7 .
Accordingly, the trial vide S.T. No.
405 of 1998.
A seizure memo was prepared and was signed by the said two witnesses.
P.C. , Gulam Sarbar simply denied all allegations against him and even denied his presence at the place of occurrence.
At the time of raid, the said appellant tried to run away on the scooter after seeing the police but was chased and captured near Bartad.
Similarly, Dhiren Mahto left the place of occurrence on LML Vespa Scooter alongwith Asgar Mian.
Gulam Sarbar jumped from the motorcycle near Bartand Pulia and tried to flee but was companytrolled and captured by them and upon interrogation, he revealed that Yakub was the person who had run away on the motorcycle.
when he saw two persons on one black companyoured Kawasaki motorcycle crossing the barrier at a very high speed.
The company accused Yakub Ayub was apprehended later and was tried separately vide S.T. No.
On the companytrary, they pushed the barrier and fled away on which Jagdish Prasad PW.8 and Constable Badre Alam chased them.
Gurpreet Singh Mittal DW.1 , was examined only to prove that there was numberlight in Sant Nirankari Bhawan at the relevant point of time, and further to show that Nirankari Chowk was at a distance of about 200 250 feet away from Nirankari Bhawan.
He was chased by the police and arrested at a short distance from the place of occurrence after he jumped a police barricade.
Even the general diary did number mention what the distance was between the police station and the place from where Gulam Sarbar, appellant, was arrested.
Sant Kumar Sinha deceased asked the accused persons how they were related to running the affairs of the institute, which led to an exchange of hot words between the deceased and the accused persons.
Even the police Constable Badre Alam who accompanied Jagdish Prasad PW.8 I.O. at the time of arrest of Gulam Sarbar has number been examined.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeals DB Nos.
273 of 1998 R and 262 of 1998 R affirming the judgment and order of companyviction and sentence dated 26.8.1998 and 31.8.1998 respectively passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.
112 of 1997, by which and whereunder, the appellants in both these appeals stood companyvicted alongwith others, namely, Binod Kumar, Asgar Mian Asgar Ansari, Paiki Ramm Poki Ramm and Mantu Das under Sections 302 read with 120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life.
