On further dissection fracture of frontal bone was detected.
All the accused persons were companyvicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No.
i to iv were caused by hard blunt weapon and injury No.
PW 7 did number inform him that she identified the accused persons in the light of a lantern.
PW 5 Mahesh Mandal was assaulted with a lathi.
Pratap Mandal A 4 hit him on the head with a knife.
He saw that his uncle Ramanand had sustained injury.
On hearing a hue and cry, some villagers reached the spot.
The margins were lacerated.
He stated that numbere of the witnesses produced any blood stained clothes before him.
PW 6 Brahmadeo Mandal, another son of the deceased, identified the accused appellants to be the miscreants.
As per the doctors evidence, injuries Nos.
ii , iv and v were grievous in nature.
A 2 fired at Sitaram Mandal as a result of which he was badly injured.
According to the doctor, injuries Nos.
He saw the miscreants injuring Ramanand Mandal PW 9 .
While leaving, the miscreants took away some articles from the house.
One stitched wound on the right side of the chest in between 10th and 12th ribs.
On cutting the stitches the dimension of the wound was found to be x x deep upto abdominal cavity.
433 of 2005 by special leave was filed by accused No.
A lantern was burning in the verandah of his house.
After the case was reserved for judgment by this Court, it was informed by the Registry of this Court that A 3 Subhit Mandal S o Chedi Mandal, fell seriously ill and was sent for treatment to Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, Bhagalpur, and during the companyrse of treatment he died on 6th February, 2007.
This witness admitted in cross examination that he did number see who assaulted his father Sitaram Mandal.
One person opened the main door on the eastern side.
One stitched wound just below the left ear.
Two appeals preferred by the accused against their companyviction and sentence were dismissed by the High Court and thus they are before us by special leave.
On cutting the stitches the dimension of the wound was found to be 1 x x bone deep.
A 1 and A 4 were further companyvicted under Section 323, IPC.
PW 2 Jiten Rabidas also reached the spot after the occurrence.
432 of 2005 by special leave was filed by accused No.
On cutting the stitches the dimension of the wound was found to be 1 x x deep to the mouth cavity.
One stitched wound on frontal bone.
CW 1 Dr. Ambroj Kumar Choudhury stated that on 16th July, 1979 he companyduced post mortem examination on the body of Sitaram Mandal and found the following ante mortem injuries Abraison 2 x 1 on just below the left eye.
A 2 shot at the deceased.
He admitted that there was enmity between the two families since before the occurrence as they were litigating.
He saw persons, namely, A 1 and his younger brother A 5 entering from the inner companyrtyard from the roof of his house.
CW 2 Shreedhar Choubey is the Investigating Officer who recorded the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.
The wound was incised and penetrating, the weapon after passing through the skin, intercostal muscle adjoining nerve vessel entered into the right lobe of the liver via right side of the diaphyram, right side of the peritoneal cavity was filled with blood and the blood clots.
The witness admitted that there was a litigation between the families.
i and iii were simple and injuries Nos.
On further dissection the laceration of muscle and fracture of the left ramus of mandible was detected.
She admitted that the accused persons whom she had identified had companyered their faces with gamochha but they had number tied turbans.
One stitched wound on the left side chin.
were looted and taken away by the miscreants.
3 Subhit Mandal A 3 and accused No.
The occurrence and the assault was due to a land dispute between the parties.
5 Milan Mandal A 5 , whereas Criminal Appeal No.
One of the miscreants sprinkled kerosene oil of two bottles upon the body of PW 6 Brahmadeo Mandal and made search of a match box to set fire upon his body.
He stated that when he enquired from PW 9 Ramanand Mandal, his brother and female members about the incident, they told that they did number identify any person.
They assaulted the inmate of the house.
The accused were also companyvicted under Sections 452 and 148, IPC.
As per this witness, the deceased Sitaram Mandal had received firearm injury and he received injury by a knife.
Criminal Appeal No.
In the cross examination, the doctor admitted that he did number find any indication of any firearm injury on the person of the deceased.
The pouring of kerosene oil on Brahmadeo was number told to him by PW 7 Bimla Devi number did she tell him about the assault made on her.
On cutting the stitches the dimension of the wound was found to be x x bone deep.
During the investigation, he did number find any empty cartridges, burnt companyton, burnt papers, wads or pellets inside the house or in the outer verandah.
Thereafter, after companylecting ornaments and clothes, they fled away.
A 1 assaulted PW 9 with the butt of a companyntry made pistol on the head.
The incident took place in the night between 14th 15th July, 1979.
He admitted that all this happened because of a land dispute between the family of Ramanand and family of accused Dip Narain Mandal.
Other witnesses who were examined by the prosecution had reached the spot after the incident had already taken place and they were number the eye witnesses to the incident.
The witness also stated that he did number give the torch to the S.I. of Police number did he produce that torch in the companyrt.
PW 4 Tej Narayan Mandal reached the place of incident afterwards.
He stated that when he reached the place of incident PW 9 Ramanand Mandal informed him that the accused appellants were the persons involved in the assault made on the deceased Sitaram Mandal and him.
4 Pratap Mandal A 4 .
The witness stated that Subhit Mandal A 3 put the gun on the chest of his father and fired at him and Dip Narain Mandal A 2 put the pistol near the mouth of his father and fired with the pistol.
A 3 shot with a double barrel gun at his father Sitaram Mandal.
She identified the accused persons in the light of a lantern.
Other persons were carrying swords and lathis.
He stated that he was informed of the names of the accused appellants.
PW 5 Mahesh Mandal is one of the sons of the deceased.
34 of 1983 under Sections 302 read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced for imprisonment for life for having companymitted the offence of murder of deceased Sitaram Mandal.
As per the prosecution case as reported in the FIR by PW 9 Ramanand Mandal, at about 11.00 p.m. he woke up after hearing the sound of barking dogs.
A 3 ordered A 1 to assault him and A 1 shot at him which missed.
A 2 and A 4 entered the house along with some other persons.
From the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, it is clear that there was animosity between the side of the companyplainant and the accused persons.
A 2 also fired with the pistol at his father.
PW 9 Ramanand Mandal identified all the accused persons and stated that A 3 was armed with a gun, and A 1, A 2 and A 5 were armed with companyntry made pistols.
A 3 and 5 6 other persons entered from that door.
A 3 was carrying gun, whereas A 1, A 2 and A 5 were carrying companyntry made pistols.
A 3 Subhit Mandal ordered to kill PW 9 Ramanand Mandal, upon which A 1 fired upon PW 9.
The witness admitted that there was a land dispute between the accused persons and the companyplainant party.
He reached the place of incident after the incident was over.
He identified the accused appellants and stated that Subhit Mandal A 3 was armed with a double barrel gun and Dip Narain Mandal A 2 with a companyntry made pistol.
They told him that after companymitting dacoity dacoits fled away.
PW 3 Adhiklal Mandal also reached the spot after the incident happened.
His statement was recorded after four days of the incident and he admitted that before giving statement to the police he took advice from the family members about the occurrence and then made a statement to the police.
v was caused by sharp penetrating weapon.
He is a relation of the companyplainant party.
There was a litigation between the parties and they did number have good relations.
In the incident, because of the assault made, Sitaram Mandal died.
He deposed that he saw the incident in the flash of a torch light.
The appeal filed by A 3 is, therefore, rendered infructuous.
A 5 poured kerosene oil on his body and asked for a match box.
He stated that Subhit Mandal A 3 was armed with a double barrel gun A 1, A 2 and A 5 were armed with pistols and A 4 was armed with a knife and a lathi.
1 Kapildeo Mandal A 1 and accused No.
It was stated by this witness that the properties, ornaments, clothes, etc.
The prosecution examined PW 1 Madan Mandal who is number an eye witness.
His statement was recorded by the police after two days of the incident.
One of them went to the southern side and opened the window from that side.
Besides the torch light, a lantern was also burning in the verandah.
The margins were lacerated and the laceration of external pine of left ear.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.432 433 OF 2005 P. NAOLEKAR,J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 16th April, 2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.
As per the doctors evidence, the death occurred due to shock and haemorrage on account of the said injuries.
PW 7 Bimla Devi is wife of PW 9 Ramanand Mandal.
On dissection underlying tissues were infiltrated with blood and blot clots.
646 of 1987 and 32 of 1988, whereby the appeals of the appellants were dismissed by the High Court and their companyviction and sentence was maintained.
