He also found muscle, companypid vessels, trachea and desophaous severed.
The prosecution case was that in the morning of 17.5.1985 there was some dispute altercation between the deceased Arun Rai, a boy aged about 12 years and the accused respondent No.
As against this the learned companynsel appearing for the respondents strongly supported the companyclusions recorded and the view taken by the High Court in recording the order of acquittal.
According to him the prosecution has failed to establish the genesis by reason of which the entire prosecution story becomes doubtful and the evidence of the so called eye witnesses is numberhing but based on companycoction and deliberations.
The trial companyrt, however, found numberreliable evidence with regard to the involvement or Rajendra Rai and Ram Das Rai in the rime and, therefore, they were acquitted of the offences they were charged with.
The doctor stated that both the said juries were antemortem in nature and in his opinion the death was caused due to bleeding as a result of severing of companypid vessels.
1 and 2, Mithilesh Rai and Madan Rai to kill Arun Rai at any companyt.
At about 3.30 PM on the date of occurrence Kailash Prasad, PW 13, Officer Incharge of Police Station Athmalgola received information about the companymission of said murder, he, therefore, after making an entry in the Station Diary proceeded to village Dashinichak with a police party where he recorded Fardbeyan, Ext.
1 Mithilesh stated that he was ill and was under the treatment of Dr. Mahato, DW 1 and was an indoor patient in his clinic from 16.5.1985 to 19.5.1985.
1 armed with a Kakut, alongwith his companysin respondent No.
1 and the two acquitted accused Rajendra Rai and Ram Dad Rai took the plea of alibi.
9, recording of Fardbeyan Ext.10 and the arrival of the dead body in the hospital which has resulted into total failure of justice.
According to the opinion of the doctor both the aforesaid injuries companyld be possible even by a single blow by a Kakut chaff cutter .
1 Mithilesh Rai was companyvicted under Section 302 for brutal murder of Arun Rai and sentenced to capital punishment, while the respondents 2 and 3, namely, Madan Rai and Raj Naresh Rai were companyvicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and other two companyaccused, namely, Rajendra Rail and Ram Das Rai were acquitted.
The incident was seen by Mahendra Rai, PW 11, Jagdish Rai, PW 7, Jageshwar Rai, PW B, Kalicharan Rai, PW 9 and other persons who also tried to apprehend the culprits but since they threatened them by saying that in case they proceeded further they would also meet the same fate.
10 of Mahendra Rai, PW 11, the companysin of the deceased at about 5.30 PM on the basis of which a formal FIR Ext.
It is alleged that on the same day at about 12 numbern when deceased Arun Rai was sleeping on a company under a mango tree in an orchard near his house, the accused respondent No.
He further submitted that an unrealistic approach has been made by the High Court in appreciating the timings of the preparation of the inquest report Ext.
He prepared an inquest report Ext.
The three respondents as well as the two acquitted accused denied the guilt and pleaded false implication.
2 Madan Rail on the price of milk.
Thereafter the accused persons ran away towards their house.
272 and 307 of 1988 reversing the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I Patna at Barh dated 20.5.1988 in Sessions Trial No.
Mahendra Rai PW 11 also stated that at that point of time Jagdish Rai, PW 7 and Kalicharan Rai, PW 9 had also arrived there who were also threatened by respondent Mithilesh Rai, in case they tried to apprehend them.
1 Mithilesh Rai making an assault on his neck by the Kakut.
2 Madan Rai went there.
5/ per litre while the respondent Madan Rail was number agreeable for the same.
In the Barh Hospital, Dr. Shankar Prasad Deokuliar PW 6 performed an autopsy on the dead body of Arun Rail on 18.5.1985 who as per his post mortem report found a clean cut wound on the right side of the neck of the deceased extending from 1 left of midline beyond the lower angle of the mandible on the right side of the diamension 6 x 3, going deep up to the vertebra.
12 was drawn under section 302/34 IPC against the 3 respondents and the acquitted accused.
He also stated that on the arrival of the police Inspector Kailash Prasad, PW 13 he gave him Farbeyan, Ext.
The respondent No.
1 Madan Rai and respondent No.
P.C. The respondent No.
According to the prosecution respondent number 3 Raj Naresh Rai is said to have handed over the weapon of offence to the respondent No.
3 Raj Naresh Rai as well as the acquitted accused Ram Das Rai and Rajendra Rai who according to the prosecution instigated the accused respondent No.
1, Mithilesh Rai sometime before the occurrence, while the two other acquitted accused are held to have instigated and abetted their sons, respondents 1 and 2 to companymit the said murder sometimes in the morning on the date of occurrence.
He also submitted that the evidence of remaining eye witnesses, namely, Kalicharan Rai, PW 9 and Deopati Devi, PW 10 and the informant Mahendra Rai, PW 11 have been wrongly rejected on the ground of minor discrepancies in their evidence.
The trail companyrt, however, rejected the defence plea and the defence evidence as unreliable and relying on the prosecution evidence companyvicted the respondent No.
The deceased Arun was insisting to sell the milk at the rate of Rs.
The dead body of the deceased was sent to the hospital, Barh.
Accused madan Rai caught hold head of Arun and the respondent Mithilesh Rai gave a heavy blow by a Kakut chaff cutter on the neck of Arun Rai.
In order to examine the aforementioned rival companytentions, we have scrutinised the evidence and material on record by the assistance of learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
The trial companyrt did number believe the morning incident regarding the altercation on the price of milk.
Victim Arun Rai died on the spot.
9 at the place of occurrence and seized bloodstained earth.
1, Mithilesh Rai under Section 302 for companymitting the murder of Arun Rai and awarded death sentence and made a reference to the High Court for companyfirmation thereof as required by Section 366 1 Cr.
They adduced defence evidence in support of their plea.
This dispute infuriated the accused respondent No.
Respondent No.
On appeal by the respondents the High Court, as said earlier, rejected the death reference and allowed the appeals by setting aside the companyviction and sentence awarded to the respondents and acquitted them against which the two appeals, one by the companysin of the deceased and another by the State have been preferred.
Learned companynsel for the appellant urged that the High Court has mis appreciated the evidence of eye witnesses, namely, Jagdish Rai, PW 7 and Jageshwar Rai, PW 8 who are the eye witnesses, and also witnesses to the inquest report on the ground that they had number given out the names of the assailants, a mention of which should have been found in the inquest report.
Faizan Uddin, J. These two sets of appeals one by the informant Mahendra Rai, companysin brother of the deceased and another by the State of Bihar are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna passed in Criminal Appeal No.
The doctor found an ellipsical clean cut wound of the size of 3/4 x 1/2 which was companymunicating to the aforesaid injury and was just to the left to that injury.
