In the meantime, he also tried to trace the accused persons and was able to arrest Sona Chaudhary on 11.10.1992 while other accused persons were number immediately available to be arrested.
In the said case, one of the accused persons by name Saryug Paswan was absconding.
Based on such companyroboration, the evidence of PW 8 was accepted by the Sessions Court and the appellants were companyvicted on that basis.
3, 9 and 12.
Thereafter, it is stated that PWs.
On companypletion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed by which time the other accused persons except Saryug Paswan were arrested.
The trial companyrt in the companyrse of its judgment, came to the companyclusion that the evidence of PW 8, the lone eye witness though an interested person, can be relied upon with the help of some companyroboration from the other evidence led by the prosecution which companyroboration it found from the evidence of PW 12 Sunil Chaudhary who is the son of one of the decease Rajendra Chaudhary.
Against the said judgment and companyviction, the appellants preferred appeals before the High Court of Patna which dismissed the appeals, companyfirming the judgment and sentence imposed on the appellants.
Certain other witnesses like PW 4 Mantu Paswan and PW 5 Arjun Pandit have also turned hostile and have number supported the prosecution case.
8 and 10 went to the village and informed the people there including their relatives about the incident and brought them to the place of the incident and carried Rajendra Chaudhary who was injured, to a local doctor by name Dr. Birendra Babu number examined who on examining him, declared him dead.
He also imposed a sentence of 7 years RI for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and directed the sentences to run companycurrently.
In this trial the prosecution examined 2 eye witnesses, namely PWs.
Therefore, the prosecution relies on the sole evidence of PW 8 who was the only other eye witness.
8 and 10 who according to the prosecution were sleeping with the deceased at the time of the incident out of which PW 10 has number supported the prosecution case, and he was declared hostile.
Out of the 3 accused persons who have been companyvicted by the companyrts below, accused Suresh Chaudhary has preferred Crl.
It also found partial support from the evidence of PW 10 Baleshwar Chaudhary, PW 9 Satish Kumar and PW 2 Bindeshwari Prasad who actually did number support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.
The High Court also found some assistance from the evidence of PW 13, the I.O. Thus, by dismissing the appeals, it companyfirmed the judgment and companyviction awarded by the Sessions Court.
The trial of the said accused person was separated from the other accused persons.
8 and 10 along with other relatives and villagers brought the dead body of Rajendra Chaudhary to the Police Station and gave a companyplaint which was signed by Bijendra Chaudhary PW 8 , and which was reduced to writing by Ramashankar Singh PW 13 , who was then the SHO of Police Station Islampur, who also investigated the case in hand.
The prosecution then states that the said Investigating Officer, PW 13, went to the spot and companyducted the inquest on the two dead bodies lying there and thereafter companyducted the inquest on the dead body of Rajendra Chaudhary at the Police Station.
Santosh Hegde, J. The two appellants in these appeals along with two other accused persons were charged for companymitting offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for having companymitted triple murder of Shivnandan Mahto, Chamru Chaudhary and Rajendra Chaudhary on the night intervening between 10th and 11th October, 1992 within the jurisdiction of Islampur Police Station.
