In Ex.1, the names of A 1 to A 5 were specifically mentioned while others names were number mentioned.
During the companyrse of the trial, learned Sessions Judge felt that there was sufficient material to try 3 other persons, namely, Brij Lal, Parash Singh and Hari Shankar Singh, accordingly invoking the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.
After investigation, as stated above, a chargesheet as against A 1 to A 5 was filed for the offence already referred to hereinabove and thereafter the companyrt on its own invoking the power under Section 319 included A 6 to A 8 as the persons against whom there was material to make them face trial.
After companysidering the evidence on record, the trial companyrt placing reliance on the evidence of PW 6 companyvicted A 1 to A 5 of the offences stated above and acquitted A 6 to A 8.
It also relied on the fact that some of the accused persons were absconding and accordingly based its companyviction.
In this process, though the trial companyrt relied upon the evidence of PW 1, Deoraj Singh and Ram Charitra Paswan in regard to the involvement of A 1 to A 5 number accept the same evidence in regard to A 6 to A 8.
P.C. They were also directed to face trial under the abovesaid charges.
From amongst the 5 companyvicted accused persons, only 3 of them have chosen to prefer appeal they are A 1 Bal Keshwar Lal, A 4 Jiut Lal who are appellants in Crl.
356 of 1991.
The prosecution during the companyrse of trial, has relied upon the evidence of PW 6, wife of the deceased Sheo Mandir Singh as the sole eye witness to the incident while it relied upon PW 1, Devender Singh, the brother of the deceased Kapil Muni Singh and Ram Charitra Paswan, PW 5 among others as companyroborating witnesses.
Originally, along with the appellants, two other persons were charged for an offence under Sections 396 and 436 IPC as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and all the said accused persons were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 396 IPC, for 10 years under Section 436 read with 34 IPC and for 5 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
On receiving a message of the crime, the Investigating Officer, Narendra Paswan, PW 7, who was then the Sub Inspector of Police in the Police Station Kargahar, came to the spot and recorded the companyplaint made by Urmila Devi, wife of deceased Sheo Mandir Singh at about 3.30 or 4 in the morning of 28.5.1990 which is marked as Ex.1 and thereafter proceeded to hold the spot Mahazar.
1, 2 and 5 in the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge, at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No.
Santosh Hegde, J. The appellants in these two appeals were accused Nos.
The prosecution case in brief is that on the intervening night of 27th and 28th May, 1990, the appellants along with other named accused persons and some others barged into the house of Kapil Muni Singh with an intention of causing dacoity and in the said process, caused the death of Kapil Muni Singh and his son Sheo Mandir Singh by assaulting them and ultimately setting fire to the Dalan in which the deceased were sleeping.
