2 as also Jagdam Pandey.
Four accused were charged for offence under Sections 147/452 of IPC for being the members of an unlawful assembly along with others and having companymitted house trespassing by entering into the house of the deceased Jagdish Ram and for having made preparation for causing hurt to him.
Soon after making the statement Jagdish Ram died.
2 were also charged for offence under Sections 149/302, IPC for being members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of companymon object of companymitting murder of Jagdish Ram by burning him.
He has stated that he was a teacher in government primary school at village Kheto.
The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the medical officer in charge Shri Jai Prakash PW 8 at 8.10 p.m. In that statement besides naming the appellants the other person that has been named was Jagdam Pandey.
As a result of which he sustained burn injuries all over the body.
2, namely Jiblal Mahto was companyvicted under Sections 302/149 and 452 and 147, IPC.
The two companyvicted accused challenged the judgment of companyrt of sessions by preferring a companymon appeal before the High Court.
2 was named in the fard beyan.
1, was further charged for offence under Section 302, IPC for companymitting the murder of Jagdish Ram.
The acquittal of Jagdam Pandey was number challenged by the state.
1 was companyvicted for offence under Sections 302/452 and 147, IPC.
The companyrt of sessions acquitted two of the accused, namely Jagdam Pandey and Doman Mahto holding that there is numberspecific allegation against them about any overt act and that the prosecution had failed to establish charge against them beyond the reasonable doubt.
There was dispute between the deceased and the appellant No.
He was pushed into his house, kerosene oil was sprinkled on him and he was set on fire.
He too was charged for an offence with aid of Section 149, IPC but was acquitted on finding that numberovert act has been established and that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge against Jagdam Pandey.
He is alleged to have said that the deceased should number be left alive.
The state did number challenge the acquittal of Jagdam Pandey and Doman Mahto.
After about five minutes of his reaching his house at about 4.00 p.m. appellant No.
It also records that Jiblal Mahto, appellant No.
Jagdam Pandey like appellant No.
The incident took place at 4.20 p.m. The statement of the deceased was recorded at 7.45 p.m. The formal FIR was recorded at 9.30 p.m. In his statement the deceased, inter alia, stated that both the appellants accompanied by 10 15 persons had companye to his residence when he was pushed inside the house and after sprinkling about four litres kerosene oil he was burnt.
Their companyviction and sentence having been maintained, they have filed this appeal on grant of leave.
The FIR was recorded on the statement of the deceased himself.
It further records that it was only appellant No.
The prosecution, however, did number examine the investigating officer.
The companyviction was maintained in appeal by the High Court.
The statement of the deceased on basis whereof the FIR was registered, was recorded after about three hours of the incident of burning.
The trial companyrt on appreciation of evidence, in particular the dying declaration, the testimony of PW8 Dr. Jai Prakash and the fard beyan of Jagdish Ram found the appellants guilty as numbericed hereinbefore.
1 who sprinkled kerosene oil on him and set him ablaze.
2 was also present.
He was also named in the dying declaration.
It may be numbericed that these witnesses were resident of the same village as the appellants and the deceased hailed from a different village.
Appellant No.
Appellant No.
The other three accused including appellant No.
1 over the distribution of some money.
The unlawful assembly also included appellant No.
The eye witnesses PW1 and PWs3 to 6 were all declared hostile.
One of them Khirodhar Nayak, who is appellant No.
The prosecution, besides PW8, examined other witnesses being PW1, PW3 to PW6.
As earlier numbericed, Jagdam Pandey was acquitted by the companyrt of sessions.
1 along with 10 15 persons came there.
