{"id":187546,"date":"2008-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-12-28T23:37:09","modified_gmt":"2016-12-28T18:07:09","slug":"kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Kaushlendra Prasad @ Kaushal M vs State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Kaushlendra Prasad @ Kaushal M vs State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: S.K.Katriar<\/div>\n
      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB)     No.138 OF 1988\n                   WITH\n      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB)     NO.178 OF 1988\n                   WITH\n      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB)     NO.182 OF 1988\n                   WITH\n      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB)     NO.183 OF 1988\n                   WITH\n      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB)     NO.184 OF 1988\n                   WITH\n      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB)     NO.186 OF 1988\n                     *****\n<\/pre>\n
     Against the judgment and order of conviction
\ndated 22.2.1988, passed by Sri Om Prakash Sinha, 2nd
\nAdditional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in
\nSessions Trial No.258 of 1986\/ 10 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
                     *****<\/p>\n
KRISHNA MURARI MAHTON @ KRISHNA MURARI PRASAD:.. Appellant
\n                       (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.138 of 1988)
\nARUN MAHTON @ ARUN KUMAR:      ….      ……     Appellant
\n                       (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.178 of 1988)
\nSHAILENDRA MAHTO @ SHAILENDRA PRASAD:      …..    Appellant
\n                       (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.182 of 1988)
\n BAHADUR MAHTO @ INDERJIT @ INDERJIT SINGH: … Appellant
\n                       (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.183 of 1988)
\n KAUSHLENDRA PRASAD @ KAUSHAL MAHTON:      ….. Appellant
\n                       (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.184 of 1988)
\n SURENDRA PRASAD @ SULI MAHTON:           …..    Appellant
\n                       (in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.186 of 1988)
\n                           Versus
\n  THE STATE OF BIHAR:     …..    …..  …. Respondents
\n                                            (in all appeals)
\n                            *****<\/p>\n
For the Appellants:            Mr. Rana Pratap Singh,
\n(in Cr.App.(DB) No.138\/88)         Senior Advocate with
\n                               Mr. Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha
\n                                   Advocate<\/p>\n
For the Appellants:           Mr. Surendra Singh,
\n(in Cr.App.(DB)No.178\/88)         Senior Advocate with
\n                              Mr. Hemant Kumar Jha,
\n                                  Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
For the Appellant:            Mr. Chitranjan Sinha
\n(in Cr. App.(DB) No.182\/88)       Senior Advocate with
\n                              Mr. Binoy Kumar, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
      For the Appellant:                          Mr. Rana Pratap Singh,
\n      (in Cr.App.(DB)No.183\/88)                       Senior Advocate with
\n                                                  Mr. Anjani Kumar
\n                                                      Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
      For the Appellant:                          Mr. Anjani Kumar\n      (in Cr. App.(DB) No.184\/88)                     Advocate.\n\n      For the Appellant:                          Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra,\n      (in Cr.App.(DB)No.186\/88)                        Advocate.\n                             *****\n\n      For the State :                          Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad\n          (in all cases)                              Public Prosecutor.\n\n\n                                  P R E S E N T\n\n<\/pre>\n
             THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR<\/p>\n
             THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SYED MD. MAHFOOZ ALAM
\n                                  *****<\/p>\n
S K Katriar, J.           The six appellants have preferred the six<\/p>\n
         appeals    arising        out    of     a    common     judgment     dated<\/p>\n
         22.2.1988,       passed     by    the        learned    2nd   Additional<\/p>\n
         Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif, in Sessions<\/p>\n
         Trial No.258 of 1986\/10 of 1987 (The State of Bihar<\/p>\n
         Vs. Shailendra Mahton and five others), whereby Arun<\/p>\n
         Mahto    alias    Arun     Kumar       has    been     convicted    under<\/p>\n
         section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The remaining<\/p>\n
         appellants,       namely,        Krishna       Murari    Mahton     alias<\/p>\n
         Krishna    Murari        Prasad,        Shailendra       Mahton     alias<\/p>\n
         Shailendra Prasad, Bahadur Mahto alias Interjit alias<\/p>\n
         Inderjit     Singh,       Kaushlendra         Prasad    alias      Kaushal<\/p>\n
         Mahton, and Surendra Prasad alias Suli Mahton have
\n                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
been convicted under section 302 read with section 34<\/p>\n
of     the    IPC.      All       the    six      appellants    have     been<\/p>\n
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.<\/p>\n
2.                The prosecution case is that on 7.3.1986,<\/p>\n
at 10.45 A.M., the informant Budhram Prasad (P.W.6),<\/p>\n
along    with     deceased         Vijay    Yadav     got    into   a   Rajya<\/p>\n
Transport         bus     bearing        no.BHY      1355,     at   village<\/p>\n
Nakatpura to go to village Poj. When the bus reached<\/p>\n
village Muhammadpur, the accused persons came on two<\/p>\n
motor-cycles from the west and stopped their motor-<\/p>\n
cycles       in   front    of      the     bus.    They     threatened    the<\/p>\n
driver that he would be done to death if he drove the<\/p>\n
bus ahead. Accused Arun Mahton, Shailendra Mahton,<\/p>\n
and Bahadur Mahton had arrived on one motor-cycle,<\/p>\n
and Kaushal Mahton, Surendra Prasad alias Suli, and<\/p>\n
one more accused whose name he did not remember at<\/p>\n
that    time      had     approached        on     another     motor-cycle.<\/p>\n
Accused Arun Mahton, Shailendra Mahton and Kaushal<\/p>\n
Mahto were armed with rifles. Accused Bahadur Mahton<\/p>\n
and one other accused whose name was not known to the<\/p>\n
informant were wielding guns. Accused Surendra Prasad<\/p>\n
alias Suli was armed with a country-made pistol in<\/p>\n
his hand. All the accused persons got down from the<\/p>\n
motor-cycles and surrounded the bus. In the meantime,<\/p>\n
five to six persons emerged from the medicine shop of<\/p>\n
Dr. Ramnandan Prasad and came near the bus. Some of
\n                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
them   were    armed      with      pistols.     They      asked   the<\/p>\n
passengers    of   that       bus   to   get    down.   The   accused<\/p>\n
persons did not allow Vijay Yadav to get down from<\/p>\n
the bus. The informant got down from the bus out of<\/p>\n
fear. When all the passengers of the bus got down and<\/p>\n
only Vijay Yadav was left in it, accused Arun Mahton<\/p>\n
fired the first shot from his rifle on Vijay Yadav.<\/p>\n
After him accused Shailendra Mahton, Kaushal Mahton,<\/p>\n
Bahadur Mahton and Surendra Mahton also fired from<\/p>\n
the fire-arms they were wielding, at Vijay Yadav due<\/p>\n
to which he died in the bus itself. Thereafter all<\/p>\n
the accused persons left the place on their motor-<\/p>\n
cycles. While the accused persons were fleeing away,<\/p>\n
one motor-cycle fell on the ground and the accused<\/p>\n
persons fled away towards Sherpur, leaving behind the<\/p>\n
motor-cycle.   Many    residents         of    Nakatpura    including<\/p>\n
Lakhana Yadav, Baudhu Yadav, Misar Yadav and others<\/p>\n
were present there and had witnessed the occurrence.<\/p>\n
It has been alleged that murder of one Sudhir Mahton<\/p>\n
a few years ago was the motive for the occurrence. It<\/p>\n
was suspected that the deceased had his hand in the<\/p>\n
murder of Sudhir Mahton leading to the retaliation in<\/p>\n
the murder of Vijay Yadav. The Fardbeyan (Ext.2) of<\/p>\n
P.W.6 was recorded by          J.K. Sharma, S.I. of Police of<\/p>\n
Asthawan P.S., on 7.3.1986, at 12.00 P.M, at village
\n                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
Muhammadpur         on    the    basis   of    which     formal    F.I.R.<\/p>\n
(Ext.3) was drawn.\n<\/p>\n
3.                Investigation commenced. After completion<\/p>\n
of    investigation              charge-sheet        was       submitted,<\/p>\n
cognizance of the alleged offences was taken and the<\/p>\n
case was committed to the court of sessions.                       Charge<\/p>\n
against Arun Mahton was framed under section 302 of<\/p>\n
the   IPC    as     well    as   section      27    of   the   Arms     Act.<\/p>\n
Charges      were    framed      against      the   remaining      accused<\/p>\n
persons under section 302 read with section 34 of the<\/p>\n
IPC. Charges were framed and explained to the accused<\/p>\n
persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be<\/p>\n
tried. The defence of the accused persons was that<\/p>\n
they have been falsely implicated in this case due to<\/p>\n
enmity.\n<\/p>\n
4.                The prosecution examined nine witnesses<\/p>\n
in support of its case. P.W.1 (Rajendra Gope), P.W.2<\/p>\n
(Raghubir      Yadav),       P.W.3   (Ram     Lakhan     Yadav),      P.W.4<\/p>\n
(Suresh Prasad), P.W.5 (Baudhu Gope), P.W.6 (Budhram<\/p>\n
Prasad), and P.W.7 (Rajo Yadav), are eye witnesses.<\/p>\n
P.W.8 is Sub-Inspector of Police who had investigated<\/p>\n
the   case    and        submitted   charge-sheet.         P.W.9   is    the<\/p>\n
Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif,<\/p>\n
who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of<\/p>\n
Vijay Yadav, the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
5.                The   following    documents    were   marked   as<\/p>\n
exhibits on behalf of the prosecution:<\/p>\n
          (i)     Exhibit-1      –   Signature of Suresh Prasad
\n                                     on the seizure-list.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (ii) Exhibit-1\/1 –         Signature    of    Krishna
\n                                     Prasad on the seizure-list.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (iii)Exhibit-1\/2 –         Signature of Suresh Prasad
\n                                     on the inquest report.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (iv) Exhibit-1\/3 – Signature     of     Krishna
\n                             Prasad on the inquest report.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (v) Exhibit-2         -   Fard-beyan\n\n          (vi) Exhibit-3         -   Formal F.I.R.\n\n          (vii)Exhibit-4         -   Seizure-list\n\n          (viii)Exhibit-4\/1-         Seizure-list    in    which\n                                     Rajdoot   motor-cycle   was\n                                     seized.\n\n          (ix)Exhibit-5 -            Carbon   copy       of   death\n                                     inquest.\n\n           (x)Exhibit-6         -    Post-mortem report.\n\n<\/pre>\n
6.                 The following are the material exhibits<\/p>\n
on behalf of the prosecution:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     a.         Exhibit-I       -     Casette No. S.C.I.\n     b.         Exhibit-II      -     Bullet (cartridge)\n     c.         Exhibit-III     -     Bushirt\n     d.         Exhibit-IV      -     Full pant\n<\/pre>\n
7.                The defence examined one witness, namely,<\/p>\n
Dr. Suresh Kumar Verma, in support of its case to<\/p>\n
prove the case of alibi set up by accused Arun Mahto.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The defence also proved O.T. slip of Sadar Hospital,<\/p>\n
Muzaffarpur, which has been marked Exhibit-A.
\n                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
8.              On a consideration of the materials on<\/p>\n
record,   the    learned         trial     court      found   that    the<\/p>\n
occurrence     had   taken       place     in   Bus    No.BHY-1355    at<\/p>\n
village Nakatpura. Accused Arun Mahton had fired the<\/p>\n
first shot at Vijay Yadav from his rifle, followed by<\/p>\n
fire-arm shots from the remaining appellants, as a<\/p>\n
result of which he died inside the bus. He, therefore,<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced all the six appellants in the<\/p>\n
aforesaid manner. They were, however, acquitted of<\/p>\n
the charge under section 27 of the Arms Act because<\/p>\n
of   absence    of   the       necessary    sanction     in   terms   of<\/p>\n
section 30 of the Arms Act.\n<\/p>\n
9.              I would prefer to consider the evidence<\/p>\n
of the informant (P.W.6) first of all. He is Budhram<\/p>\n
Prasad, an agriculturist by avocation, and lk<+w (co-<\/p>\n
brother) of the deceased. Both of them are Gharjamai<\/p>\n
and living in their Sasural because their wives have<\/p>\n
no brother. About 17 months ago they had together<\/p>\n
left their Sasural and boarded a Rajya Transport bus<\/p>\n
at village Nakatpura to go to Barbigha to purchase a<\/p>\n
buffalo. The bus had stopped at village Muhammadpur<\/p>\n
to enable passengers to get down and get in. As soon<\/p>\n
as the bus had stopped, two motor-cycles with three<\/p>\n
persons on each arrived and parked the same in front<\/p>\n
of the bus. One of them went near the driver\u201fs door,<\/p>\n
abused him in foul language and said that he would be
\n                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
shot dead if he had taken the bus forwards. Arun,<\/p>\n
Shailendra and Kaushal were armed with rifles, and<\/p>\n
Bahadur and Suli were armed with pistols. The sixth<\/p>\n
person whose name he was unable to recall was armed<\/p>\n
with a gun. At this point of time, six persons armed<\/p>\n
with pistols emerged from the medicine shop of Dr.<\/p>\n
Ramanandan situate nearby. Arun had forced the driver<\/p>\n
to get out of the bus. The other five motor-cycle<\/p>\n
riders went to the rear gate of the bus and started<\/p>\n
forcing the passengers to come out of the bus. The<\/p>\n
persons who had emerged from the medicine shop of Dr.<\/p>\n
Ramanandan    stood   at   the    driver\u201fs    door.     All   the<\/p>\n
passengers got out of the bus except Vijay Yadav. The<\/p>\n
informant also got out of the bus and stood on a<\/p>\n
raised place near the medicine shop. Arun came back<\/p>\n
to the rear door, entered the bus and fired at Vijay<\/p>\n
from his rifle. The other five accused persons also<\/p>\n
fired   at   Vijay.   He   had   received    injuries    in   his<\/p>\n
stomach (dks[k) and his chest, as a result of which he<\/p>\n
died. The six accused persons got on their motor-<\/p>\n
cycles and fled away. One of the motor-cycles slipped<\/p>\n
a little distance away, in village Sherpur, which was<\/p>\n
abandoned and the riders ran towards Sherpur village.<\/p>\n
The six persons who had emerged from the medicine<\/p>\n
shop of Dr. Ramanand ran away towards the village.<\/p>\n
The informant identified Arun, Shailendra, Bahadur,
\n                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
Kaushal   and    Suli        who    were    present    in   court      and<\/p>\n
recognised them. The sixth person was not present in<\/p>\n
court. He claimed that he can recognise him also. The<\/p>\n
Sub-Inspector         of     Police        reached    the    place      of<\/p>\n
occurrence      and    took        down     the   fardbeyan       of   the<\/p>\n
informant which was read over to him and he affixed<\/p>\n
his thumb-impression marked Exhibit.2.<\/p>\n
9.1)            P.W.6 has stated in his cross-examination<\/p>\n
that he was about 15-20 years ago married to the<\/p>\n
daughter of Tek Lal of village Nakatpura. The second<\/p>\n
daughter was married to Vijay Yadav (the deceased).<\/p>\n
Both were co-brothers (lk<w), and cultivators, P.W.6<\/p>\n
being the elder one. Both of them are engaged in<\/p>\n
cultivation.     He        has   further     stated   in    his    cross-<\/p>\n
examination that both of them had taken their meals<\/p>\n
before they had left their residence to catch the bus.<\/p>\n
The informant had taken rice, pulses and vegetables.<\/p>\n
Vijay had taken his meal separately. He was not aware<\/p>\n
as to what food Vijay had taken. It had taken about<\/p>\n
10 minuts from Nakatpura to reach Muhammadpur. After<\/p>\n
the accused persons had got down from their motor-<\/p>\n
cycles, they had started shouting "idM+k&s ekjks". They were<\/p>\n
mentioning Vijay Yadav\u201fs name also. He claims to be<\/p>\n
recognising the motor-cycle riders from before for<\/p>\n
about 2-3 years. They used to perform Saraswati Puja<\/p>\n
at Yadav\u201fs Lodge where he also used to visit and had
\n                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
recognised them since then. He was not aware about<\/p>\n
the   avocations         of    the   motor-cycle         riders.    He    has<\/p>\n
further stated in his cross-examination that he used<\/p>\n
to supply milk to them. There was no problem about<\/p>\n
payments. The six persons who had emerged from the<\/p>\n
medicine shop stood at the driver\u201fs door. They had<\/p>\n
not surrounded the bus. None of the passengers had<\/p>\n
resisted the accused persons. Vijay had not attempted<\/p>\n
to escape from the bus. P.W.6 had made no attempt to<\/p>\n
save and protect Vijay out of sheer fear. The accused<\/p>\n
persons had not misbehaved or ill-treated any one of<\/p>\n
the     passengers         including      the       informant.      He    had<\/p>\n
noticed the accused persons when he was getting out<\/p>\n
of the bus. There was no exchange of words with them.<\/p>\n
He    knows     a    few      residents        of   Muhammadpur.         After<\/p>\n
getting    out      of     the     bus,   he    had     requested    a    few<\/p>\n
residents of Muhammadpur to save and protect Vijay<\/p>\n
but they had expressed their helplessness. Yadavs are<\/p>\n
also amongst the residents of Muhammadpur. Vijay was<\/p>\n
looking from inside the bus and had called for help.<\/p>\n
He (P.W.6) said that he was helpless and was unable<\/p>\n
to do any thing. Most of the passengers got scattered<\/p>\n
and only a few remained there. The six persons who<\/p>\n
had emerged from the medicine shop had not fired any<\/p>\n
shot.     All       persons        present      there     including       the<\/p>\n
passengers and the shop-keepers kept quiet and made
\n                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
no attempt to control the situation. No teacher or<\/p>\n
student from nearby middle-school or high school came<\/p>\n
there. He had re-asserted that, after getting out of<\/p>\n
the bus, he had proceeded towards the medicine shop<\/p>\n
and stood on a raised place and was, therefore, able<\/p>\n
to witness the occurrence. He has stated that he had<\/p>\n
seen Indradeo near the medicine shop, but no other<\/p>\n
acquaintance was present there. 5-6 shots had been<\/p>\n
fired     and     people    had   started      running     away       after<\/p>\n
hearing the sound of the shots. He had denied the<\/p>\n
suggestion        that     Indradeo    Yadav       had   gone    to     the<\/p>\n
medicine shop to call Dr. Ramanandan or that Indradeo<\/p>\n
had seen the occurrence. Arun had fired the first<\/p>\n
shot as a result of which Vijay had fallen down. The<\/p>\n
accused persons had left the bus about 5-6 minutes<\/p>\n
thereafter and the informant (P.W.6) had entered the<\/p>\n
bus after a minute or two.\n<\/p>\n
9.2)                     He has further stated in paragraph<\/p>\n
47   of    his    cross-examination         that    he   knew    all    the<\/p>\n
accused persons as well as the names of their fathers.<\/p>\n
He knew them at the time of occurrence also. He had<\/p>\n
expressed        complete    unawareness      about      the    death    of<\/p>\n
Sudhir.     He     has   denied    the      suggestion     as    to     the<\/p>\n
details of the trial regarding the murder of Sudhir.<\/p>\n
He   has    in     paragraph      52   of   his     cross-examination<\/p>\n
denied the suggestion that Vijay had taken liquor. He
\n                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
has stated in paragraph 54 of his cross-examination<\/p>\n
that he had met Vijay at 6.00 to 7.00 A.M.. Both were<\/p>\n
going to Barbigha for purchase of buffalos. P.W.6 was<\/p>\n
carrying 3,500\/- in cash for the purchase. He has<\/p>\n
further stated that Vijay was not drunk at the time<\/p>\n
they left their residence. Both of them had got seats<\/p>\n
in the bus on the left side of the engine. Arun had<\/p>\n
pointed his rifle at Vijay, as a result of which he<\/p>\n
could not get out of the bus. The firings in the bus<\/p>\n
had taken place after he had got out of the bus.<\/p>\n
After Arun had fired the shots, five more shots were<\/p>\n
fired at him. He had noticed P.W.3 (Lakhan), P.W.5<\/p>\n
(Baudhu), P.W.1 (Rajendra), P.W.7 (Rajo), and Mishra<\/p>\n
near   the   dead   body.   Hira   Chaukidar,   resident    of<\/p>\n
village      Muhammadpur,    had    informed    the     police<\/p>\n
whereafter the Sub-Inspector of Police had arrived.<\/p>\n
9.3)            On a close scrutiny of the deposition of<\/p>\n
P.W.6, it appears that he has fully supported the<\/p>\n
prosecution case, and the defence has not been able<\/p>\n
to elicit any contradiction in his deposition. He and<\/p>\n
Vijay Yadav deceased had left Nakatpura together in<\/p>\n
the bus. As soon as the bus had reached Nakatpura, it<\/p>\n
was surrounded by the six appellants who had come on<\/p>\n
two motor-cycles variously armed. He was unable to<\/p>\n
recall the name of Krishna Murari but he asserted<\/p>\n
that he can recognise him on seeing him.              Arun had
\n                               13<\/span><\/p>\n
got into the bus first of all and fired at Vijay<\/p>\n
Yadav from a point-blank range. This was followed by<\/p>\n
gun-shots by the remaining five appellants who were<\/p>\n
standing in the rear portion of the bus. He along<\/p>\n
with    other    co-passengers           particularly     of     Nakatpura<\/p>\n
were unable to save and protect him out of sheer fear.<\/p>\n
Arun had fired the first shot, as a result of which<\/p>\n
Vijay had fallen down. This was followed by fire-arm<\/p>\n
shots    by     the    remaining         five   appellants       who    were<\/p>\n
standing inside the bus in the rear. Though P.W.6 has<\/p>\n
stated    that     he    and        Vijay   had   taken    food       before<\/p>\n
leaving the residence to get the bus, but he states<\/p>\n
that they had not taken food together and was not<\/p>\n
aware as to what food Vijay had taken giving rise to<\/p>\n
the possibility that Vijay may or may not have taken<\/p>\n
anything before leaving their residence. He claims to<\/p>\n
have known the appellants for some time.<\/p>\n
10.                   P.W.1         (Rajendra      Gope)         is       an<\/p>\n
agriculturist, and a resident of Nakatpura. He was<\/p>\n
travelling by the same bus to Barbigha Hat along with<\/p>\n
Budhram Gope and Vijay. He had boarded the bus along<\/p>\n
with Budhram Gope and Vijay at village Nakatpura at<\/p>\n
about    11.00        A.M.         The   bus    stopped     at    village<\/p>\n
Muhammadpur      to     enable       passengers    to     get    down    and<\/p>\n
board the bus. Two motor-cycles with three persons on<\/p>\n
each had stopped in front of the bus. All the six
\n                          14<\/span><\/p>\n
persons got down, surrounded the bus, started talking<\/p>\n
in abusive language and had the passengers out of the<\/p>\n
bus.    Only   Vijay    remained      inside   the    bus.   He   was<\/p>\n
stopped from coming out of the bus at the gun point<\/p>\n
by Arun, Shailendra, Bahadur, Kaushal, Suli and one<\/p>\n
more person. They all were carrying fire arms. Dr.<\/p>\n
Ramanand\u201fs     shop    was    close   by. 5-6     persons    emerged<\/p>\n
from    his    shop    whom   he   was   unable      to   recognise.<\/p>\n
Kaushal, Shailendra, Bahadur and Suli had surrounded<\/p>\n
the bus in the rear. The persons who had come out of<\/p>\n
Ramanand\u201fs shop were at the driver\u201fs door. Arun Mahto<\/p>\n
came to the rear gate of the bus. He shot at Vijay<\/p>\n
Yadav. This was followed by indiscriminate firing by<\/p>\n
other accused persons. Vijay dropped dead, whereafter<\/p>\n
the accused persons went away in different directions.<\/p>\n
He recognised Suli alias Surendra, Arun, Bahadur and<\/p>\n
Kaushal who were present in court. Shailendra was not<\/p>\n
present in the court room. He asserted that he can<\/p>\n
recognise Shailendra also.\n<\/p>\n
10.1)            He has stated in his cross-examination<\/p>\n
that he knew the accused persons from before. He used<\/p>\n
to supply milk to them and that is how he recognises<\/p>\n
them. Nakatpura and Muhammadpur are separated by “,d<\/p>\n
dksl”. Nakatpura and Barbigha are separated about “ikap<\/p>\n
dksl”. He was going to Barbigha market. It had taken a<\/p>\n
total of 10 minutes after the bus was cleared of the
\n                             15<\/span><\/p>\n
passengers. He had himself got out of the bus out of<\/p>\n
sheer fear. The accused persons were standing at the<\/p>\n
gate when he was getting out of the bus. They had not<\/p>\n
threatened him and he had gone towards the shop of Dr.<\/p>\n
Ramanand. Budhram was also standing with him. Some of<\/p>\n
his     co-villagers        were       also     standing    where      Rajo<\/p>\n
(P.W.7),     Lakhan    (P.W.3),          Raghubir    (P.W.2),       Baudhu<\/p>\n
(P.W.5),     and   Mishri        Gope    were    present.    We   do    not<\/p>\n
remember     the     names        of    other    persons.    They      were<\/p>\n
standing on Tilha. The Tilha was about “nks&rhu gkFk”away<\/p>\n
from the bus. P.W.1 and Budhram also stood on the<\/p>\n
Tilha. The Tilha was up to waist height and had a<\/p>\n
circumference of “pkj&ikap gkFk”. He has further stated in<\/p>\n
his cross-examination that the accused persons had<\/p>\n
confined Vijay in the bus and did not allow him to<\/p>\n
get up from his seat. Arun Mahto was pointing a rifle<\/p>\n
at    his   chest.    The        remaining      accused    persons     were<\/p>\n
standing at the rear-gate. Vijay wanted to get out of<\/p>\n
the bus but were prevented by the accused persons at<\/p>\n
gun point.\n<\/p>\n
10.2)              On a close perusal of the deposition of<\/p>\n
P.W.1, it appears that he is a co-villager and a<\/p>\n
resident of Nakatpura, had travelled with P.W.6 and<\/p>\n
the deceased in the same bus. He has also stated that<\/p>\n
Arun was first to fire shot at Vijay from point-blank<\/p>\n
range. Vijay Yadav dropped dead. This was followed by
\n                             16<\/span><\/p>\n
indiscriminate firing by other accused persons. He<\/p>\n
had witnessed the entire occurrence while standing on<\/p>\n
the Tilha. He had fully supported the mode and manner<\/p>\n
of the occurrence, as well as participation of the<\/p>\n
six appellants in the manner stated in the Fardbeyan,<\/p>\n
and   the    defence       has   not    been   able   to   elicit    any<\/p>\n
contradiction in his testimony.\n<\/p>\n
11.                 The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 are on the<\/p>\n
same lines as P.Ws.1 and 6. P.W.2 (Raghubir Yadav) is<\/p>\n
an agriculturist and resident of Nakatpura. He had on<\/p>\n
that day, at about 11.00 A.M., gone to the clinic of<\/p>\n
Dr. Ram Nandan to give him a call. When he reached<\/p>\n
there, he noticed that a bus had reached there from<\/p>\n
the   west    and    stopped.      Two motor-cycles        with   Arun,<\/p>\n
Bahadur, Shailendra, Kaushal, Suli and Krishna Murari<\/p>\n
came and stopped in front of the bus. They were armed<\/p>\n
with rifles and guns. Arun had forced the passengers<\/p>\n
to get out of the bus. Vijay Yadav was not allowed to<\/p>\n
come out of the bus. In the meantime, 5-6 persons<\/p>\n
emerged      from    the    shop   of    Dr.   Ram    Nandan   and    he<\/p>\n
recognised Dinesh, Devendra and Kishori amongst them.<\/p>\n
Arun Mahto entered into the bus through the rear door<\/p>\n
and shot at Vijay Yadav. Shailendra, Bahadur, Kaushal,<\/p>\n
and Suli also fired shots at Vijay, as a result of<\/p>\n
which he died in the bus. On hulla being raised, the<\/p>\n
accused persons fled away on the two motor-cycles.
\n                            17<\/span><\/p>\n
One     motor-cycle    fell           down    about     100     yards      away<\/p>\n
whereafter      all   of    them        took       to   their     heels.    He<\/p>\n
identified      Shailendra,            Suli,        Bahadur,      Arun     and<\/p>\n
Kaushal who were present in court.                         Krishna Murari<\/p>\n
was not present in court on that day. He claimed that<\/p>\n
he recognises Krishna Murari and can identify him.<\/p>\n
11.1)             He has stated in his cross-examination<\/p>\n
that he had gone to fetch Dr. Ram Nandan because his<\/p>\n
daughter Saroj Kumari was unwell. Indradeo Yadav was<\/p>\n
also present in the Dr. Ram Nandan\u201fs dispensary on<\/p>\n
that day. He visits Muhammadpur once or twice every<\/p>\n
month.    Dr.   Ram   Nandan           or    his    compounder      was     not<\/p>\n
present in the dispensary when he reached there. Arun<\/p>\n
was initially standing at the driver\u201fs door and the<\/p>\n
remaining accused persons were at the rear door. The<\/p>\n
driver was forced to              come out          of the bus       due    to<\/p>\n
abusive language and threat of gun-shot. There was a<\/p>\n
Tilha between Dr. Ram Nandan\u201fs clinic and the bus. He<\/p>\n
perched    himself    on        the    Tilha       along   with    5-6     more<\/p>\n
persons. Except one or two persons, all the remaining<\/p>\n
persons from his village were on the Tilha. There<\/p>\n
were about 50 persons in the bus, all of whom except<\/p>\n
Vijay came out of the bus without protest carrying<\/p>\n
their belongings in their hands, and dispersed. No<\/p>\n
one attempted to save and protect Vijay. Budhram and<\/p>\n
Rajendra, co-villagers, also stood on the Tilha. They
\n                       18<\/span><\/p>\n
felt helpless because of the sight of rifle. He knew<\/p>\n
the accused persons for one to two years. He used to<\/p>\n
meet them at Yadav lodge where they assemble for Puja.<\/p>\n
He has further stated in his deposition that when the<\/p>\n
case relating to the other Vijay Yadav (not the Vijay<\/p>\n
Yadav deceased of the present case) was in progress,<\/p>\n
he used to watch the proceedings. He has denied the<\/p>\n
suggestion that the said case had given rise to caste<\/p>\n
frenzy between the Yadavas and Kurmis. He has further<\/p>\n
stated in his deposition that he did not say anything<\/p>\n
out of fear. People reached there about 15-20 minutes<\/p>\n
after the accused persons had fled away. The driver\u201fs<\/p>\n
door had been obstructed by Arun. The remaining five<\/p>\n
accused persons were at the rear gate, who had not<\/p>\n
allowed Vijay to come out of the bus. He had stayed<\/p>\n
there till the arrival of the police. The police had<\/p>\n
arrived there about 2-21\/2 hours after the occurrence.<\/p>\n
He had gone inside the bus to have a look at Vijay.<\/p>\n
He must have earlier met Krishna Murari at least ten<\/p>\n
times. He used to talk to him because they belong to<\/p>\n
the   same   area.   He    had   no   other   connection   with<\/p>\n
Krishna Murari. He knew him for about three years. He<\/p>\n
had met Krishna Murari for the first time in a Barat<\/p>\n
of Kurmis, whereafter they had met quite often. His<\/p>\n
co-villagers also recognised Krishna Murari. He has<\/p>\n
further stated in his cross-examination that he had
\n                         19<\/span><\/p>\n
seen one mark of fire-arm shot in the bus. It was<\/p>\n
embedded in the body of the bus and was that of a<\/p>\n
rifle. He had not noticed the spent bullet on the<\/p>\n
floor of the bus. The left side of the wind screen<\/p>\n
was heavily broken, and pieces of glass had fallen<\/p>\n
inside the bus as well as out side. After the murder,<\/p>\n
Budhram,    Rajendra    and    Indradeo    had    first    of   all<\/p>\n
entered the bus. The dead body was lying on the floor<\/p>\n
of the bus about “,d ls Ms<+ gkFk" away from the driver\u201fs<\/p>\n
seat. While P.W.2 was perched on the Tilha, Vijay was<\/p>\n
visible from inside the bus. Dr. Ram Nandan is not<\/p>\n
M.B.B.S. Doctor. Budhram and Vijay were Sarhus. He<\/p>\n
has denied the suggestion that Suli, Arun and Krishna<\/p>\n
Murari have been made accused in the present case<\/p>\n
because they were witnesses in the case of the other<\/p>\n
Vijay.\n<\/p>\n
11.2)           P.W.    2    has   supported     the   prosecution<\/p>\n
case. His deposition is further noteworthy for the<\/p>\n
reason that he had recognised Krishna Murari in a<\/p>\n
situation where P.W.6 and P.W.1 have stated that they<\/p>\n
were unable to recall the name of the sixth accused<\/p>\n
person, although they claimed that they can identify<\/p>\n
him. He has further stated in his deposition that<\/p>\n
Dinesh,    Devendra    and    Kishori   were   amongst    the   six<\/p>\n
persons who had come out of the clinic of Dr. Ram<\/p>\n
Nandan.    He   has   also   deposed    that   there    existed   a
\n                             20<\/span><\/p>\n
Tilha between the clinic and the bus and he along<\/p>\n
with    other     P.Ws.      stood      on   that.     He    has   further<\/p>\n
deposed that there was a case relating to the other<\/p>\n
Vijay and he used to watch those proceedings. He had<\/p>\n
denied the suggestion that the case of other Vijay<\/p>\n
had given rise to a caste-frenzy in the area. He had<\/p>\n
stayed there until the arrival of the police which<\/p>\n
had reached 2-21\/2 hours after the occurrence which is<\/p>\n
consistent with the prosecution case that the Sub-<\/p>\n
Inspector of Police had received the information when<\/p>\n
he was attending a crime meeting at Biharsharif. He<\/p>\n
had noticed the gun-shot mark in the bus. The left<\/p>\n
side    of    the    front       wind   screen    was       substantially<\/p>\n
broken.\n<\/p>\n
12.                 P.W.3        (Ram    Lakhan        Yadav)      is      an\n\nagriculturist        and    a    resident    of Nakatpura.         He     has\n\n<\/pre>\n
deposed to the effect that about 17 months ago on a<\/p>\n
Friday at about 11.00 A.M., he was in a tea shop at<\/p>\n
Muhammadpur and was taking tea. A bus reached there<\/p>\n
and stopped. Six persons wielding fire-arms reached<\/p>\n
there        on     two     motor-cycles         and     parked         their<\/p>\n
motorcycles in front of the bus. They got down from<\/p>\n
the motor-cycles and surrounded the bus. Five persons<\/p>\n
stood at the gate for the passengers and forced them<\/p>\n
to come out of it after using abusive language. Vijay<\/p>\n
remained inside the bus. 5-6 persons emerged from the
\n                         21<\/span><\/p>\n
shop of Dr. Ramanand and stood at the driver\u201fs gate.<\/p>\n
The accused persons were Arun Mahto, Shailendra Mahto,<\/p>\n
Bahadur Mahto, Kaushal Mahto, Suli Mahto and Krishna<\/p>\n
Murari Mahto. They got into the bus and shot at Vijay,<\/p>\n
whereafter they ran away. He recognised Bahadur Mahto,<\/p>\n
Shailendra Mahto, Arun Mahto, Kaushal Mahto and Suli<\/p>\n
Mahto who were present in court. Krishna Murari Mahto<\/p>\n
was not present in court. P.W.3 was a regular visitor<\/p>\n
to Muhammadpur and he had on that day reached there<\/p>\n
at about 10.00 A.M..\n<\/p>\n
12.1)             He has stated in his protracted cross-<\/p>\n
examination that the tea-shop owner used to send his<\/p>\n
servant with tea inside the bus but it did not happen<\/p>\n
on that day. Arun Mahto asked the driver to come out<\/p>\n
of   the   bus    otherwise   he   would   be   shot   dead.   The<\/p>\n
driver was pulled out of the bus but did not run away<\/p>\n
out of fear and stood on the road. Khalasi got out of<\/p>\n
the bus through the rear gate. It had taken about<\/p>\n
five minutes for the passengers to come out of the<\/p>\n
bus and was coming out with small belongings in their<\/p>\n
hands. He had noticed Indradeo of his village there.<\/p>\n
He   stood   on   a   collection   of   stones   situate   at   a<\/p>\n
distance of 5-7\u201f from the bus along with others. He<\/p>\n
went over the mound of stones when the bus was being<\/p>\n
evacuated of the passengers some of whom stood near<\/p>\n
the mound. Vijay was shot-dead as soon as he stood up
\n                          22<\/span><\/p>\n
from the seat. After committing the murder of Vijay,<\/p>\n
the accused persons went away in different directions.<\/p>\n
He knew them for about 1 -11\/2 years. Arun Yadav was a<\/p>\n
leader and he knew him. He had gone to the lodge on<\/p>\n
invitation where the accused persons were living. He<\/p>\n
stayed there for about two hours after the occurrence<\/p>\n
and the police had reached there in his presence.<\/p>\n
Vijay Yadav deceased was engaged in cultivation at<\/p>\n
his Sasural.\n<\/p>\n
12.2)            His deposition is on the same lines as<\/p>\n
that of P.W.2 and is particularly noticeable for the<\/p>\n
reason that he has named Krishna Murari amongst the<\/p>\n
six accused persons who had come on the motor-cycles<\/p>\n
and done Vijay Yadav to death. He has fully supported<\/p>\n
the     prosecution    case,       and    the    defence     in     its<\/p>\n
protracted    cross-examination          has    not   been   able   to<\/p>\n
elicit any contradiction.\n<\/p>\n
13.              P.W.4        is    Suresh       Prasad,     is      an<\/p>\n
agriculturist, and a resident of Nakatpura. He is a<\/p>\n
formal witness and has proved his signature and that<\/p>\n
of Krishna Prasad on the seizure-list prepared by the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer which have been marked Exhibits<\/p>\n
1 and 1\/1. On the same day, the investigating officer<\/p>\n
had   prepared   the     inquest     report     and   had    put    his<\/p>\n
signature thereon. Krishna Prasad had also recorded<\/p>\n
his signature thereon which has been marked Exhibits
\n                         23<\/span><\/p>\n
1\/2   and   1\/3    respectively.   The   inquest   report   was<\/p>\n
prepared along with the carbon copy. He had put his<\/p>\n
signature at the road side of Muhammadpur at about<\/p>\n
2.30 P.M. He had gone there on hearing hulla.<\/p>\n
14.               P.W.5 (Baudhu Gope) is an agriculturist<\/p>\n
and resident of Nakatpura. His deposition is on the<\/p>\n
same lines as that of P.Ws.2 and 3, and had gone to<\/p>\n
Dr. Ramanand\u201fs shop to obtain medicines for his wife.<\/p>\n
He has fully supported the prosecution case, and the<\/p>\n
defence has not been able to elicit any contradiction<\/p>\n
in his lengthy cross-examination. His deposition is<\/p>\n
particularly noticeable for the reason that he had<\/p>\n
also seen and recognised Krishna Murari amongst the<\/p>\n
six accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
15.               P.W.7 is Rajo Yadav, an agriculturist, a<\/p>\n
resident of Nakatpura, and is a tendered witness.<\/p>\n
16.               P.W.8 is Jai Keshav Sharma and is the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer. He has deposed to the effect<\/p>\n
that he was, on 7.3.1986, posted as Sub Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police at Asthawa Police Station. He had on that day<\/p>\n
at about 11.00 A.M., received information about the<\/p>\n
occurrence as well as the place of occurrence. He was<\/p>\n
then at Biharsharif and from there reached the place<\/p>\n
of occurrence at about 12.00 noon. He had recorded<\/p>\n
the statement of Budhram Prasad as per the version<\/p>\n
given by him which was read out to him and feeling
\n                            24<\/span><\/p>\n
satisfied he had put his left thumb-impression. The<\/p>\n
Fardbeyan in the hand-writing of the investigating<\/p>\n
officer     bears    his    signature     and    has    been    marked<\/p>\n
Exhibit.2,     which   was      forwarded       to    Asthawa   Police<\/p>\n
Station to be recorded as F.I.R. The formal F.I.R. is<\/p>\n
in    the   hand-writing        of    Ramanuj    Ram,    A.S.I..     He<\/p>\n
recognised     his     signature        and     has     been    marked<\/p>\n
Exhibit.3. He had taken the statement of Budhram for<\/p>\n
the   second   time    and      had    inspected       the   place   of<\/p>\n
occurrence. He has given the description of the place<\/p>\n
of occurrence and the position of the bus. The bus<\/p>\n
had stopped at the bus-stop. One dead body was found<\/p>\n
inside the bus near the engine. He has also given the<\/p>\n
description of inside of the bus. He had also found<\/p>\n
and collected the spent bullet of .315 bore of rifle.<\/p>\n
Lot of blood was found near the dead body. All the<\/p>\n
seats inside the bus were in a disturbed state. There<\/p>\n
were also marks of gun-shot inside the bus in the<\/p>\n
front portion. He has also given the description of<\/p>\n
the dead body and the manner in which it was lying.<\/p>\n
He has given the description of the wounds\/injuries<\/p>\n
on the dead body which was covered with                      blood. He<\/p>\n
has given the description of clothes which he was<\/p>\n
wearing. Blood was found on the Kachcha as well as<\/p>\n
Pucca portion of the road underneath the bus. He also<\/p>\n
found the motor-cycle bearing No.BHE-94, lying on the
\n                         25<\/span><\/p>\n
ground about 100 yards from the bus. He had prepared<\/p>\n
three copies of the seizure-list with the help of<\/p>\n
carbon in the presence of Krishna Prasad Yadav and<\/p>\n
Suresh     Prasad     who     had    affixed          their    signature<\/p>\n
thereupon.    The    seizure-list         and       his   signature    has<\/p>\n
been marked Exhibit-4. He also prepared the inquest<\/p>\n
report    with    the   signature        of     Krishna       Prasad   and<\/p>\n
Suresh Prasad recorded in his presence. The same has<\/p>\n
been     marked     Exhibit-5.      He     has       also     given    the<\/p>\n
description of the motor-cycle which was seized in<\/p>\n
presence of Ram Nageena and Naresh Prasad. He had<\/p>\n
prepared three copies of the seizure-list with the<\/p>\n
help of carbon with the signatures of the witnesses.<\/p>\n
The    seizure-list     has   been    marked         Exhibit-4\/1.      The<\/p>\n
Dy.S.P. and the Inspector of Police had also reached<\/p>\n
the place of occurrence. He then forwarded the dead<\/p>\n
body of Vijay Yadav for post-mortem along with the<\/p>\n
constables    named     therein.     He       has    given    reasonable<\/p>\n
details of the investigation. He has also stated in<\/p>\n
his deposition that he had recorded the statements of<\/p>\n
various witnesses. He had gone to village Balwapur in<\/p>\n
search of Krishna Murari but he could not be found.<\/p>\n
He concluded the investigation on the receipt of the<\/p>\n
post-mortem report. He had sent a blue-coloured shirt<\/p>\n
soaked in blood for chemical examination. He has also<\/p>\n
proved the material exhibits marked Exhibits-I to IV.
\n                             26<\/span><\/p>\n
He    has,   inter       alia,       stated     in    his     lengthy   cross-<\/p>\n
examination that he has received the information of<\/p>\n
the    occurrence        while       he     was      attending    the    crime<\/p>\n
meeting presided over by the Superintendent of Police<\/p>\n
at Biharsharif. He has further stated in his cross-<\/p>\n
examination that in view of the statement of Indradeo<\/p>\n
Prasad he had raided the house of Dinesh and Devendra.<\/p>\n
He has also stated that he does not remember to have<\/p>\n
seen a Tilha in front of the medical shop of Dr.<\/p>\n
Ramanand.\n<\/p>\n
16.1)               On the prayer of accused Krishna Murari,<\/p>\n
P.W.8    was   recalled          for      his     cross-examination.         His<\/p>\n
lawyer did not turn up for cross-examination and was,<\/p>\n
therefore, discharged on 5.12.1987. He was, however,<\/p>\n
subjected      to    a    detailed          cross-examination           at   the<\/p>\n
instance of accused Krishna Murari on 15.12.1987. He<\/p>\n
has, inter alia, stated in his cross-examination that<\/p>\n
he had recorded the statements of the driver and the<\/p>\n
conductor. He has further stated in paragraph 69 that<\/p>\n
the names of Devendra Mahto and Dinesh Prasad had<\/p>\n
come up during the course of investigation leading to<\/p>\n
raid of their houses but they were found absconding.<\/p>\n
But he did not pursue it any further.                         He has given a<\/p>\n
detailed     narration          of    the     course     of    investigation<\/p>\n
commencing     with       the    receipt        of information          of   the<\/p>\n
occurrence till the submission of the charge-sheet.
\n                              27<\/span><\/p>\n
He    has   proved       exhibits      which    along    with      his   oral<\/p>\n
testimony, fully support the prosecution case. The<\/p>\n
defence      in    its    detailed       cross-examination         has    not<\/p>\n
been able to elicit any contradiction.<\/p>\n
17.                P.W.9 is Dr. C.P. Sinha. He has stated<\/p>\n
in his deposition that he was then posted as Civil<\/p>\n
Assistant Surgeon. He has deposed to the effect that<\/p>\n
on 7.3.1986, he was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon<\/p>\n
at Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif. On that day, at 4.30<\/p>\n
P.M., he conducted the post-mortem on the dead body<\/p>\n
of    Vijay   Yadav,        son   of     Kailash      Yadav   of     Village<\/p>\n
Nakatpura, a male aged 25 years. He has proved the<\/p>\n
post-mortem report marked Exhibit-6, wherein he noted<\/p>\n
the following findings.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (1)        One circular penetrating bullet wound of
\n                  3\/4″    diameter       with      ragged     lacerated
\n                  inverted margin on the front of right
\n                  side of chest at the level of 8 th rib,
\n                  fracturing it and piercing through the
\n                  liver (entry wound) and passing out on
\n                  the    right    side    of    the    back   with       the
\n                  lacerated       circular         opening      of       2″\n<\/p>\n
                  diameter with a ragged everted circular
\n                  margin.\n<\/p>\n
       (2)        One penetrating bullet wound with the
\n                  injury on right side of chest lateral to
\n                  the nipple of 3\/4″ diameter with ragged
\n                  inverted    irregular        margin    piercing        the
\n                  right lung, heart, left lung and passing
\n                  out with exit at the level of 11th rib
\n                          28<\/span><\/p>\n
              opening    being         of    2″    diameter,            causing
\n              the lacerated wound of 21\/2″x2″ on the
\n              left elbow medially.\n<\/p>\n
                      The injuries were caused by fire-\n<\/p>\n
              arm and were grievous in nature fired
\n              from a distance of about 25\u201f-30\u201f.\n<\/p>\n
        (3)   On dissection abdominal cavity contained
\n              about     two       pounds          of     blood.         Stomach
\n              contained          six    ounce          of    liquid        with
\n              alcoholic smell. Intestines                          contained
\n              gasses and faecal matters.\n<\/p>\n
        (4)   Urinary     bladder           was    empty.         Liver    was
\n              lacerated.\n<\/p>\n
        (5)   Both lungs and the heart were lacerated
\n              at      their       middle          portion         with     left
\n              lung,    lower       lobe      lacerated            and    blood
\n              present       in     thoracic            cavity      of    about
\n              three pounds.\n<\/p>\n
        (6)    Brain, spleen,           and       Kidneys         were    pale.\n<\/p>\n
              Genetalia were normal.\n<\/p>\n
        (7)   In my opinion, the death occurred due to
\n              fire-arm           injuries          described             above
\n              leading     to      shock      and        haemorrage.         The
\n              time elapsed between the death and P.M.
\n              about 8-12 hours.\n<\/p>\n
\n17.1)          He     has      stated        during         the    course     of<\/p>\n
cross-examination that process of digestion does not<\/p>\n
continue after the death of the man. Alcohol is not as<\/p>\n
easily   digestible     as       water.      Vegetarian           diet    digest<\/p>\n
faster provided there is less quantity of fat in it.<\/p>\n
His finding regarding the distance of firing cannot
\n                              29<\/span><\/p>\n
vary from 2 to 3 feet both sides. He has denied the<\/p>\n
suggestion     that     his       deposition       to    the      effect    that<\/p>\n
finding regarding the presence of alcoholic smell in<\/p>\n
the stomach,        and the distance of                 firing,      has    been<\/p>\n
given to help the accused. The direction in injury<\/p>\n
nos.1   and    2    were      resulting      from       firing       down-ward<\/p>\n
suggesting that the shooter was on a higher place. If<\/p>\n
shooter and the deceased are on the same level, then<\/p>\n
the bullet will passes through his body horizontally.<\/p>\n
17.2)              He   was        sought     to        be     subjected     to<\/p>\n
separate course of cross-examination at the instance<\/p>\n
of accused Krishna Murari but was discharged because<\/p>\n
none appeared to cross-examine him on 5.12.1987. He<\/p>\n
was, however, subjected to cross-examination at the<\/p>\n
instance      of    accused       Krishna     Murari         on    recall     on<\/p>\n
4.1.1988. He has, inter alia, stated that injury no.1<\/p>\n
was alone sufficient to cause death in ordinary course<\/p>\n
of nature. One can survive for about half an hour<\/p>\n
after   sustaining          injury    no.1.       Apart      from     the    two<\/p>\n
injuries, he has emphasised and also stated in his<\/p>\n
post-mortem        report     that    he    has    found       two   fire-arm<\/p>\n
injuries on the dead body. He did not find any other<\/p>\n
injury like abrasion, bruise or scuffling mark on the<\/p>\n
dead body. He found six ounces of alcohol in the dead<\/p>\n
body which was sufficient to cause intoxication. He<\/p>\n
cannot say that the deceased was a habitual drunkard.
\n                             30<\/span><\/p>\n
17.3)              In view of the consistent, trust-worthy,<\/p>\n
and     unshaken      testimony        of     the    eye-witnesses,            the<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W.9 needs very close scrutiny.<\/p>\n
18.                The defence has examined one witness to<\/p>\n
prove the plea of alibi on behalf of Arun Mahto. D.W.1<\/p>\n
is    Dr.    Suresh    Kumar      Verma.      He has        deposed      to    the<\/p>\n
effect that he is posted as Assistant Professor at<\/p>\n
Shri     Krishna      Medical         College,       Muzaffarpur,            since<\/p>\n
24.10.1981. He has Post-graduate degrees. He works in<\/p>\n
the hospital from 8.00 to 12.00 A.M. during summer,<\/p>\n
and    from    8.30     A.M.     to     12.30       P.M.    during      winter,<\/p>\n
besides teaching in the college. He also attends to<\/p>\n
the     outdoor        patients         in     the     department.             The<\/p>\n
prescriptions are issued to the out-door patients as<\/p>\n
per    the    register.      He    had       worked        in    the   out-door<\/p>\n
patient department on 7.3.1986. He had examined Arun<\/p>\n
kumar aged 26 years, son of Ambika Prasad Singh of<\/p>\n
village Naya Bidha, P.S. Barh. He was suffering from<\/p>\n
bleeding nose. As an out-door patient, he had given<\/p>\n
him prescription and had prescribed the medicines.                              He<\/p>\n
had    examined       the   patient      thoroughly,             and   had    also<\/p>\n
cauterised the bleeding point in his nose. He has<\/p>\n
identified the patient standing in the dock of the<\/p>\n
court room. He has proved the prescription written in<\/p>\n
his    own    hand-writing        and    is     marked          Exhibit-A.     The<\/p>\n
entry number of this prescription is E.N.T.\/927, dated
\n                        31<\/span><\/p>\n
7.3.1986,    which   also   bears   the   seal   of   the   Sadar<\/p>\n
Hospital, Muzaffarpur. He has not brought the out-door<\/p>\n
patient register from the Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur.<\/p>\n
He has brought a photo copy of the relevant entry of<\/p>\n
out-door register. He had examined the patient between<\/p>\n
10.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. He usually devotes about ten<\/p>\n
minutes in examining one patient. Exhibit-A does not<\/p>\n
mention the identification mark of the patient. He<\/p>\n
identified the patient because he had been to him with<\/p>\n
the court\u201fs summons and had also shown to him a photo<\/p>\n
copy of the prescription (Exhibit-A). He has also six<\/p>\n
fingers in one of his legs which is not stated in<\/p>\n
Exhibit-A. He has denied the suggestion that he has<\/p>\n
manufactured Exhibit-A.\n<\/p>\n
19.             The accused persons had thereafter made<\/p>\n
statements   under   Section   313   of   the    Cr.P.C..   They<\/p>\n
denied their involvement in the alleged offence and<\/p>\n
claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
20.             On a consideration of the materials on<\/p>\n
record and the submissions of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the parties, the learned trial court held that the<\/p>\n
prosecution has been able to prove the place and the<\/p>\n
manner of occurrence as stated in the Fardbeyan. He<\/p>\n
has further held that the medical evidence supports<\/p>\n
the prosecution case. He has next held that, as per<\/p>\n
the post-mortem report, the variation of time of about
\n                         32<\/span><\/p>\n
2-3 hours is not of much consequence. He has also<\/p>\n
dealt with the finding in the port-mortem report that<\/p>\n
fatal   shots    were        fired   from   20-25\u201f      which   is<\/p>\n
inconsistent with the prosecution case and held that<\/p>\n
it does not hit the core of the prosecution case. He<\/p>\n
has next held that no adverse inference can be drawn<\/p>\n
on account of non-production of the clothes of the<\/p>\n
deceased which he was wearing at the time of his death<\/p>\n
and is not fatal to the prosecution case. Failure to<\/p>\n
produce independent prosecution witnesses is also not<\/p>\n
material in this case. Non-production of Indra Deo and<\/p>\n
other witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. also does not<\/p>\n
hit the prosecution case. He has further held that the<\/p>\n
driver and the conductor ought to have been examined<\/p>\n
as prosecution witnesses. He has next found that in<\/p>\n
view of the position that the post-mortem report has<\/p>\n
found small quantity of liquor in the stomach of the<\/p>\n
deceased does not lead to the conclusion that he was a<\/p>\n
criminal and had been killed elsewhere. The learned<\/p>\n
trial court has also considered the issue whether or<\/p>\n
not Tilha existed between the bus and the clinic of Dr.<\/p>\n
Ram Nandan and has held that the discrepancy in the<\/p>\n
prosecution case and the deposition of the I.O. is not<\/p>\n
a serious lacuna in the prosecution case.            He has also<\/p>\n
found   the   motive   to    kill    Vijay Yadav   is   that    one<\/p>\n
Sudhir Mahto was some years ago killed at Nakatpura.
\n                              33<\/span><\/p>\n
He has rejected the plea of alibi set up by Arun Mahto.<\/p>\n
He has also found that Krishna Murari was one of the<\/p>\n
six persons who had come on the two motor-cycles, had<\/p>\n
got into the bus to kill Vijay Yadav, and absence of<\/p>\n
his   name       in   the    F.I.R.       does     not    entitle        him   to<\/p>\n
acquittal.        The       accused       persons        had      the     common<\/p>\n
intention to eliminate Vijay Yadav.\n<\/p>\n
21.                   Learned counsel for the appellant Arun<\/p>\n
Mahto has led the main attack before us. He has not<\/p>\n
challenged        the    place      and    the     mode     and    manner      of<\/p>\n
occurrence. He has challenged the involvement of Arun<\/p>\n
Mahto in particular, and the appellants in general, on<\/p>\n
various counts, with extra emphasis on the post-mortem<\/p>\n
report.      He submitted that the medical evidence has<\/p>\n
rendered the testimony of the eye witnesses completely<\/p>\n
false.      He    has    relied       on     the    following           reported<\/p>\n
judgments:\n<\/p>\n
      (i)         A.I.R.     1987     S.C.       826(Amar      Singh     and<\/p>\n
                  others v. State of Punjab) paragraph 9.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (ii) (2003)3 S.C.C. 153 (State of Punjab v.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 Sucha       Singh and others) paragraphs 8\n\n                 and 10\n\n       (iii)(2003)6          S.C.C.        380    (Thaman      Kumar      v.\n\n<\/pre>\n
                 State of Union Territory of Chandigarh),<\/p>\n
                 paragraph 16.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                34<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
              According             to     the        eye     witnesses,          the\n\nassailants        had       fired        six     fire-arm       shots       at    the\n\n<\/pre>\n
deceased, but the post-mortem report suggests that the<\/p>\n
deceased had sustained only two shots. This rules out<\/p>\n
the possibility of more than two persons participating<\/p>\n
in the assault. He relies on the following reported<\/p>\n
judgments:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)     A.I.R.          1976         S.C.        2263      =     (1976)4<\/p>\n
             S.C.C.394 Lakshmi Singh and others v.<\/p>\n
             State of Bihar)<\/a> paragraphs 14 and 15.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (ii)    A.I.R.         1987    S.C.       826    (Amar     Singh      and<\/p>\n
             others v. State of Punjab) paragraph 9.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (iii)    A.I.R.          1991        S.C.        4(Budhwa,           alias<\/p>\n
             Ramcharan and               othes v. State of Madhya<\/p>\n
             Pradesh).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  He has also submitted that the direction<\/p>\n
of fire was from up to down which also falsifies the<\/p>\n
eye witnesses. He relies on the judgment reported in<\/p>\n
A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1158 (Awadhesh and another v. State<\/p>\n
of Madhya Pradesh).                 It has also been submitted that<\/p>\n
in   view    of     the      position          that       the       eye   witnesses<\/p>\n
entered      into       a     conspiracy             to   falsely         implicate<\/p>\n
innocent persons, no reliance                         can be placed on any<\/p>\n
part of their           testimony to convict a single accused.<\/p>\n
He has also submitted that the medical evidence also<\/p>\n
falsifies the prosecution case that the incident took
\n                                 35<\/span><\/p>\n
place at 11.00 A.M. after the deceased had taken his<\/p>\n
morning meal. In fact, the medical evidence indicates<\/p>\n
that the murder was perpetrated between 4.00 A.M. to<\/p>\n
8.00    A.M.,       before       the    deceased       had     performed     his<\/p>\n
morning ablutions and before he had taken the morning<\/p>\n
meal.\n<\/p>\n
22.                  The        learned      Public          Prosecutor      has<\/p>\n
submitted      that       the    Fardbeyan       was     recorded      promptly<\/p>\n
eliminating all chances of false implication. Law is<\/p>\n
well    settled       that       the      real    assailants        cannot    be<\/p>\n
acquitted          because       some      body        has     been     wrongly<\/p>\n
implicated or wrongly left out. He next submits that<\/p>\n
all the eye-witnesses have consistently stated that<\/p>\n
the bus had reached Nakatpura at 11.oo A.M., and the<\/p>\n
entire occurrence was over in about 10 minutes\u201f time.<\/p>\n
In    view    of    the    clear       evidence on           this   point,   the<\/p>\n
different      time        of    death     given    in       the    post-mortem<\/p>\n
report has to be rejected as false and collusive. In<\/p>\n
any case, medical science is not so developed as to<\/p>\n
give    the    exact       time      of    death.      He     relies    on   the<\/p>\n
following reported judgments:\n<\/p>\n
             (i)      A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1715= (1985)4 S.C.C.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      80 (Pattipati Venkaiah Vs. State of<\/p>\n
                      Andhra Pradesh), paragraph 10.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (ii) (2008)1 S.C.C. (Cri) 64 (Budh Singh<\/p>\n
                      Vs.State of M.) paragraphs 14 and 18.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                              36<\/span><\/p>\n
             He next submits that the illegalities and\/or<\/p>\n
the   irregularities          in    the    investigation            do   not   by<\/p>\n
itself      affect     the        prosecution          case    which     really<\/p>\n
depends on the substantive evidence. He relies on the<\/p>\n
judgment in Budh Singh (paragraph 26) (supra). He next<\/p>\n
submits that Arun had fired the first two shots from<\/p>\n
point-blank        range     as    a     result    of    which       Vijay     had<\/p>\n
fallen      down       and     died.       This        was      followed        by<\/p>\n
indiscriminate firing from some distance within the<\/p>\n
bus which may have pierced the wind-screen and gone<\/p>\n
out. He relies on the following reported judgments:<\/p>\n
      (i)     (1997)         S.C.C.       (Cri)        716     (Mithilesh<\/p>\n
                  Upadhyay v. State of Bihar).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (ii)       2002 S.C.C. (Cri) 175 (Munshi Prasad &<\/p>\n
                  others Vs. State of Bihar).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            He next submits that six persons had come on<\/p>\n
two motor-cycles variously armed, were a determined<\/p>\n
lot and performed their criminal act with remarkable<\/p>\n
planning,        confidence,       determination,             and    precision.<\/p>\n
They are obviously liable under section 302 read with<\/p>\n
Section     34    of   the    IPC.       In view        of    the    consistent<\/p>\n
evidence     of    the     prosecution          witnesses       on    each     and<\/p>\n
every aspect of the matter, the medical evidence is<\/p>\n
false and collusive and meant to support the accused<\/p>\n
persons.     He    next      submitted      that       non-examination          of<\/p>\n
independent        witnesses        is    not     of    much    consequence.
\n                           37<\/span><\/p>\n
Reliability of the prosecution witnesses is of vital<\/p>\n
importance.    He    submits         in     the   same        vein    that<\/p>\n
examination of the driver and Khalasi would have been<\/p>\n
a better course for the prosecution but their non-<\/p>\n
examination will not affect the prosecution case for<\/p>\n
the said reason. He relies on the following reported<\/p>\n
judgment:\n<\/p>\n
       (i) A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1029 (Lakhbir Singh &<\/p>\n
             Anr. V. State of Punjab).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          He next submits that the eye-witnesses had not<\/p>\n
intervened    and   did        not   make   attempt      to    save   and<\/p>\n
protect Vijay Yadav out of sheer fear, which is a<\/p>\n
natural conduct. He relies on the following reported<\/p>\n
judgment:\n<\/p>\n
      (i) A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 696 (Appabhai and Another<\/p>\n
          Vs. State of Gujrat).\n<\/p>\n
23.             We have perused the materials on record<\/p>\n
and considered the submissions of learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the parties. P.W.6 (Budhram Prasad), the informant, is<\/p>\n
the Sarhu (co-brother) of the deceased. Both of them<\/p>\n
were Gharjamai because their father-in-law does not<\/p>\n
have a son. He has stated in the Fardbeyan that both<\/p>\n
of them had left village Nakatpura together and were<\/p>\n
travelling in the same bus of Rajya Transport, namely,<\/p>\n
BHY-1355. Vijay Yadav had occupied the very front seat<\/p>\n
behind the wind screen and was separated from the
\n                        38<\/span><\/p>\n
driver by the engine. The informant had also occupied<\/p>\n
one of the front seats. He has further stated that it<\/p>\n
had   taken   about   10    minutes   to   cover   the   distance<\/p>\n
between Nakatpura and Muhammadpur. The bus had stopped<\/p>\n
at Muhammadpur to enable the passengers to get down,<\/p>\n
and to enable the new passengers to get in, and for<\/p>\n
that purpose the bus stopped opposite the clinic of Dr.<\/p>\n
Ram Nandan. He has further stated that there was a<\/p>\n
Tilha of waist height between the bus and the clinic.<\/p>\n
As soon as the bus had stopped opposite the clinic of<\/p>\n
Dr. Ram Nandan, two motor-cycles with six persons came<\/p>\n
there and parked their motor-cycles in front of the<\/p>\n
bus. He has in the Fardbeyan mentioned the names of<\/p>\n
the   accused   persons     as   Shailendra   Mahto,     Surendra<\/p>\n
Prasad alias Suli, Kaushal Mahto, Bahadur Mahto and<\/p>\n
Arun Mahto. He has further stated that he was unable<\/p>\n
to recall the name of the sixth person. As soon as<\/p>\n
they got down from the motor-cycles, Arun Mahto stood<\/p>\n
at the driver\u201fs door and threatened him at gun point<\/p>\n
to get out of the bus. The other five persons went to<\/p>\n
the rear gate meant for the passengers and forced them<\/p>\n
to get out of the bus by using abusive language and at<\/p>\n
gun point. All the six persons were wielding fire-arms.<\/p>\n
Arun Mahto was with a rifle. This was simultaneously<\/p>\n
followed by emergence of 5-6 persons variously armed<\/p>\n
from the clinic of Dr. Ram Nandan who stood behind
\n                    39<\/span><\/p>\n
Arun Mahto. The driver got out of the bus under threat,<\/p>\n
whereafter Arun Mahto paced towards the rear gate and<\/p>\n
stormed into the bus followed by the remaining five<\/p>\n
persons. It appears that Arun Mahto proceeded towards<\/p>\n
Vijay Yadav and fired two shots at him as a result of<\/p>\n
which he dropped dead. It further appears that the<\/p>\n
remaining five appellants also got into the bus and<\/p>\n
had fired shots. He has further stated that he along<\/p>\n
with some other co-villagers of village Nakatpura had<\/p>\n
got upon the aforesaid Tilha and were in a position to<\/p>\n
watch the happenings inside the bus. He has further<\/p>\n
stated that soon after Vijay Yadav dropped dead, all<\/p>\n
the six persons fled away on their motor-cycles, one<\/p>\n
of which slipped at some distance away. They abandoned<\/p>\n
the motor-cycle and ran away towards Village Sherpur.<\/p>\n
He has further stated that one Sudhir Mahto of Village<\/p>\n
Nakatpura had been murdered a few years ago and this<\/p>\n
was the reason and the motive for the murder of Vijay<\/p>\n
Yadav.\n<\/p>\n
          P.W.6   has,   in   his   deposition,   fully<\/p>\n
supported the prosecution case. Equally P.Ws.1, 2, 3,<\/p>\n
and 5 have fully supported the prosecution case. P.W.8<\/p>\n
(I.O.) has also fully supported the prosecution case,<\/p>\n
except that he does not remember to have noticed the<\/p>\n
Tilha. In our view, this is not of any consequence for<\/p>\n
the reason that the aforesaid prosecution witnesses,
\n                           40<\/span><\/p>\n
who    are   co-villagers,      were      obviously     close   to   the<\/p>\n
deceased and must have been interested in his welfare<\/p>\n
and stood on the Tilha, giving them some height so<\/p>\n
that they could see the happenings in the bus. They<\/p>\n
have consistently stated about the existence of the<\/p>\n
Tilha, and the omission on the part of P.W.8 (the I.O.)<\/p>\n
to notice it does not make it non-existent, nor the<\/p>\n
evidence     of    the   aforesaid     prosecution      witnesses    to<\/p>\n
that extent is adversely affected. It is a possible<\/p>\n
situation that in the nervousness of a close person<\/p>\n
having being shot dead in such a brutal manner, the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses might have failed to bring the<\/p>\n
same    to   the    pointed     notice      of    the   investigating<\/p>\n
officer. On a perusal of the deposition of P.W.8, it<\/p>\n
appears to us that he had failed to notice it. He has<\/p>\n
not stated that it was pointed out to him and he did<\/p>\n
not find it. The Tilha does not appear to be so raised<\/p>\n
that    it     would     without     fail        attract   attention.<\/p>\n
Furthermore we cannot ignore the reality in India,<\/p>\n
particularly in villages where needlessly assembled<\/p>\n
piles of earth or stones is found, and may not always<\/p>\n
attract attention. We are, therefore, of the view that<\/p>\n
failure on the part of the I.O. to notice the Tilha is<\/p>\n
a minor omission and does not cut at the prosecution<\/p>\n
case.    We,       therefore,      find     and     hold   that      the
\n                          41<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution has been able to prove the place and the<\/p>\n
manner of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
24.               We may now consider the medical evidence.<\/p>\n
From a perusal of the post-mortem report, it appears<\/p>\n
that there were five holes in the body, two of which<\/p>\n
are entry wounds and three of which are exit wounds.<\/p>\n
According to the medical report, the five holes seem<\/p>\n
to have been caused by two bullets. On the other hand,<\/p>\n
the eye witnesses have deposed that Arun had fired at<\/p>\n
a point blank range. It appears that the two shots<\/p>\n
that he had fired really hit the deceased and had<\/p>\n
killed him. He had obviously fired while standing, and<\/p>\n
the eye-witnesses have deposed that Vijay was sitting<\/p>\n
in his seat, as a result of which he died. The eye<\/p>\n
witnesses have undoubtedly stated that the remaining<\/p>\n
five accused persons, who were standing inside the bus<\/p>\n
in the rear, had also fired. We must, however, notice<\/p>\n
the finding in the post-mortem report that the two<\/p>\n
shots had been fired from a distance of 25\u201f to 30\u201f.<\/p>\n
This obviously is an error on the part of the doctor<\/p>\n
in    view   of    the   consistent   evidence   of   the   eye<\/p>\n
witnesses that Arun Mahto had fired from a point-blank<\/p>\n
range. It is further relevant to state that the eye-<\/p>\n
witnesses, particularly P.W.2, have stated that the<\/p>\n
Rajya Transport bus was in a very poor condition and
\n                            42<\/span><\/p>\n
the shots, if any, fired by the five persons from the<\/p>\n
rear may have made their exit through the wind-screen<\/p>\n
which had broken down.\n<\/p>\n
25                 It    further   appears       from   the    medical<\/p>\n
evidence that the time elapsed between death and the<\/p>\n
post-mortem        was   8-12   hours.     The    post-mortem        had<\/p>\n
commenced     at    4.30    P.M.   which     takes      the   time    of<\/p>\n
occurrence back to 5.00 A.M. to 8.00 A.M.. This is<\/p>\n
obviously an error in the post-mortem report because<\/p>\n
we have already found hereinabove that the bus had<\/p>\n
undoubtedly reached the place of occurrence at 11.00<\/p>\n
A.M., and the crime was completed within a period of<\/p>\n
10 minutes. Furthermore, such an assessment of time of<\/p>\n
death is based on estimate coupled with experience and<\/p>\n
no scientific full-proof clinical formula is available<\/p>\n
to assess the exact time of death.\n<\/p>\n
26.                Learned counsel for the appellants has<\/p>\n
also placed emphasis on the finding in the post-mortem<\/p>\n
report that P.W.6 has deposed to the effect that they<\/p>\n
had together taken food and left for the journey. On<\/p>\n
the other hand, the post-mortem report does not find<\/p>\n
presence of food particles in the stomach. On the<\/p>\n
contrary, it contained gases and faecal matters. In<\/p>\n
this connection, the deposition of P.W.6 has to be<\/p>\n
read as a whole. Though he has stated that he and<\/p>\n
Vijay Yadav had taken their food together, but says in
\n                            43<\/span><\/p>\n
the same vein that they had not eaten together and was<\/p>\n
not aware as to what Vijay had eaten. It is just<\/p>\n
possible    that     Vijay       may       not    have    eaten        anything.<\/p>\n
Furthermore,       there       is    omission       in    the     post-mortem<\/p>\n
report to mention this. We have found the evidence of<\/p>\n
the   eye   witnesses          trust-worthy        and,       therefore,      the<\/p>\n
post-mortem    report          will    have       to     give    way     to   the<\/p>\n
evidence      of     the        eye-witnesses.              There       is     no<\/p>\n
inconsistency       between          the    two.       This     explains      the<\/p>\n
medical report as a whole which on the whole is not so<\/p>\n
inconsistent with the evidence of the eye witnesses<\/p>\n
that the two cannot exist side by side.<\/p>\n
27.                The    conflict         between        the    evidence      of<\/p>\n
eye-witnesses and the medical evidence has been the<\/p>\n
subject     matter       of      a     large       number       of     judicial<\/p>\n
pronouncements.          Law    is     well       settled       that    medical<\/p>\n
evidence is not gospel truth, is at the instance of<\/p>\n
doctors who are human beings capable of both making<\/p>\n
mistakes and of falling prey to usual human failings.<\/p>\n
If the evidence of eye-witnesses is trust-worthy, and<\/p>\n
the medical evidence is doubtful, then the latter will<\/p>\n
give way to the former.\n<\/p>\n
28.                The     judgment          of     the       Supreme        Court<\/p>\n
reported in A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2606 (State of Bihar v.<\/p>\n
Ram Padarath Singh and others<\/a>) may be considered. The<\/p>\n
trial court had convicted the accused persons under
\n                    44<\/span><\/p>\n
section 302 read with sections 34\/149 IPC. The High<\/p>\n
Court found discrepancies between the ocular evidence<\/p>\n
and the medical evidence, discarded the former, and<\/p>\n
gave preference to the latter. The Supreme Court on<\/p>\n
appeal restored the judgment of the trial court after<\/p>\n
holding that the High Court was not right in rejecting<\/p>\n
the evidence of the eye-witnesses which had led to<\/p>\n
miscarriage of justice. The inconsistency was not such<\/p>\n
that the two cannot stand together. Paragraph 8 and 18<\/p>\n
are reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick<\/p>\n
reference:\n<\/p>\n
       ...        ...       ...         ...\n       ...        ...       ...         ...\n            But what the High Court failed\n      to appreciate was that all the eye-\n      witnesses had seen the incident from\n      some distance.\n        ...        ...      ...       ...\n        ...        ...      ...       ...\n      on the basis of such an inconsistency\n      or discrepancy it was not proper for\n      the court to raise a doubt regarding\n      the witnesses having seen the actual\n      assault on Boudhu.\n       ...        ...       ...     ...\n       ...        ...       ...     ...\n       No doubt, to that extent their\n      evidence   can    be   said    to     be\n<\/pre>\n
      inconsistent with the medical evidence.
\n      But it is not an inconsistency of that
\n      type where one can say that the ocular
\n      evidence and the medical evidence
\n      cannot stand together and which would
\n      justify raising of a doubt regarding
\n      the truthfulness of the evidence of
\n      the eye-witnesses. The inconsistency
\n      clearly appears to be the result of
\n      confusion and does not indicate an
\n      attempt to describe the incident by a
\n      person who had not really seen it. The
\n                              45<\/span><\/p>\n
          High Court therefore was not right in
\n          rejecting the evidence of the eye
\n          witnesses as regards the assault on
\n          Boudhu, on these grounds.”\n<\/p>\n
                                             (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n
28.1)                      The    Supreme         Court    has    observed    in<\/p>\n
its     judgment     reported         in    (1990)3       S.C.C.    190=    1990<\/p>\n
S.C.C. (Cri)378= A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1459 (Vijayee Singh<\/p>\n
v. State of U.P.) that where the evidence is clear,<\/p>\n
cogent      and    creditworthy,            and    where    the     court    can<\/p>\n
distinguish the truth from falsehood, the mere fact<\/p>\n
that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution<\/p>\n
cannot      by    itself    be    a     sole      basis    to    reject     such<\/p>\n
evidence, and consequently the whole case, where the<\/p>\n
evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and<\/p>\n
uninterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy,<\/p>\n
that it outweighs the effect of the omission on the<\/p>\n
part of the prosecution to explain the injuries.<\/p>\n
28.2)                 It has been observed in (1973)3 S.C.C.<\/p>\n
881= 1973 S.C.C. (Cri) 563= A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2593 (Ram<\/p>\n
Lagan Singh vs. State of Bihar) that the prosecution<\/p>\n
is    not   called       upon     in       all    cases    to    explain     the<\/p>\n
injuries received by the accused persons. It is for<\/p>\n
the     defence     to     put    questions          to    the     prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses         regarding       the       injuries       of    the   accused<\/p>\n
persons. When that is not done, there is no occasion
\n                           46<\/span><\/p>\n
for the prosecution witnesses to explain any injury on<\/p>\n
the person of an accused.\n<\/p>\n
28.3)            It has been observed in (1988)2 S.C.C.<\/p>\n
95= 1988 S.C.C. (Cri) 279= A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 863 (Hare<\/p>\n
Krishna Singh v. State of Bihar), that the obligation<\/p>\n
of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained<\/p>\n
by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise in<\/p>\n
each and every case. In other words, it is not an<\/p>\n
invariable rule that the prosecution has to explain<\/p>\n
the injuries sustained by the accused in the same<\/p>\n
occurrence. If the witnesses examined on behalf of the<\/p>\n
prosecution are believed by the Court in proof of<\/p>\n
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, question<\/p>\n
of obligation of the prosecution to explain injuries<\/p>\n
sustained by the accused will not arise. When the<\/p>\n
prosecution      comes    with   a   definite   case    that   the<\/p>\n
offence has been committed by the accused and proves<\/p>\n
its     case   beyond    any   reasonable   doubt,     it   becomes<\/p>\n
hardly necessary for the prosecution to again explain<\/p>\n
how and under what circumstances injuries have been<\/p>\n
inflicted on the person of the injured.<\/p>\n
 28.4)          The observations of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
its judgment reported in (2005) S.C.C.(Vol.1) (Cri)<\/p>\n
178= 2004 Cr.L.J. 4881 (Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.),<\/p>\n
are relevant in the present case. Paragraph 12 is<\/p>\n
reproduced hereinbelow:\n<\/p>\n
                         47<\/span><\/p>\n
             … …    …   …     …   …\n<\/p>\n
             … …    …   …     …  …\n<\/p>\n
            “The presumption that FIR was ante-\n<\/p>\n
            timed was on an erroneous reading of
\n            the evidence of P.W.3. The trial
\n            court completely lost sight of the
\n            fact that P.W.3 was an illiterate
\n            rustic lady and minor variance in her
\n            statement should not be given primacy
\n            when the evidence itself was recorded
\n            long time after and it should not
\n            have been made the basis for coming
\n            to a conclusion that the FIR was
\n            ante-timed. It is trite law that when
\n            oral evidence is credible and cogent,
\n            that medical evidence is to the
\n            contrary, is inconsequential. Only
\n            when the medical evidence totally
\n            improbabilises the oral evidence, can
\n            adverse inference be drawn. This is
\n            not a case of that nature. ”\n<\/p>\n
29.              It thus appears to us that law is well<\/p>\n
settled that in case of conflict between the evidence<\/p>\n
of    the   eye-witnesses    and   the   medical   evidence,   the<\/p>\n
latter can in appropriate cases give way to the former<\/p>\n
provided the eye-witnesses are consistent and trust-<\/p>\n
worthy. No sanctity is attached to the medical report<\/p>\n
and it is just another piece of evidence capable of<\/p>\n
errors and liable to common human failings. The present<\/p>\n
case is really covered by the aforesaid judgments of<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court in, particularly State of Bihar v.<\/p>\n
Ram Padarath Singh<\/a> (supra). The inconsistency between<\/p>\n
the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence in<\/p>\n
the present case is not such that they cannot stand<\/p>\n
together. All the eye-witnesses had seen the occurrence<\/p>\n
while standing on the Tilha a little distance away from
\n                           48<\/span><\/p>\n
the bus. They had consistently deposed that Arun Mahto<\/p>\n
had fired the first shot(s) as a result of which Vijay<\/p>\n
Yadav fell down. P.W.6 has stated in paragraph 37 of<\/p>\n
his deposition as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “37. lcls igys v#.k us xksyh ekjh ftlls og fxj x;k…”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 This was followed by the five shots from<\/p>\n
the   fire-arms     of    the      other   five   accused     persons<\/p>\n
standing in the rear of the bus. It is obvious that<\/p>\n
the shots fired by these five appellants had passed<\/p>\n
over Vijay Yadav who had already fallen on the ground<\/p>\n
and the shots had pierced the wind-screen and had<\/p>\n
gone out of the bus.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 P.W.2 has stated in his deposition that<\/p>\n
the wind-screen had broken down, as a result of which<\/p>\n
pieces   of   glasses         of   the   wind-screen    had    fallen<\/p>\n
inside and outside the bus. Furthermore, as has been<\/p>\n
observed by the Supreme Court in Ram Lagan Singh V.<\/p>\n
State of Bihar (Supra), the prosecution is not called<\/p>\n
upon in all cases to explain the injuries received by<\/p>\n
the accused persons. It is for the defence to put<\/p>\n
questions to the prosecution witnesses regarding the<\/p>\n
injuries of the accused persons. When that is not<\/p>\n
done,    there    is     no    occasion    for    the   prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses to explain any injury on the person of an<\/p>\n
accused. As has been stated by the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
the State of Bihar V. Ram Padarath Singh<\/a> (supra),
\n                              49<\/span><\/p>\n
that    on     the    basis       of   such    an   inconsistency       or<\/p>\n
discrepancy it was not proper for the court to raise<\/p>\n
a   doubt      regarding       the     witnesses    having    seen     the<\/p>\n
actual assault.\n<\/p>\n
30.              It thus appears to me that the evidence<\/p>\n
of the eye-witnesses is consistent, creditworthy, and<\/p>\n
without         any          contradictions.         The          apparent<\/p>\n
inconsistency in the medical evidence is of minor<\/p>\n
nature, is such that it does not affect the core of<\/p>\n
the prosecution case, and is not such that the two<\/p>\n
cannot stand together. The defence did not at all<\/p>\n
cross-examine         the    prosecution       witnesses     to    explain<\/p>\n
the absence of all the alleged injuries on Vijay. In<\/p>\n
fact, presence of two shots instead seven is clearly<\/p>\n
explained by the evidence of eye-witnesses that the<\/p>\n
shots of the five accused from the rear of the bus<\/p>\n
had    their    exit    through        the    wind-screen    which    was<\/p>\n
found     broken       and     the     glass    pieces      were    found<\/p>\n
scattered inside as well as                   outside the bus. The<\/p>\n
bullets must have landed at some distance away from<\/p>\n
the bus, and it may not have occurred to anybody to<\/p>\n
locate and collect the spent bullets. The murder of<\/p>\n
Vijay was thus the result of the concerted action of<\/p>\n
the six appellants.\n<\/p>\n
31.                  Learned counsel for the appellant has<\/p>\n
submitted that the murder of Sudhir Mahto in 1983 led
\n                             50<\/span><\/p>\n
to the formation of two groups, namely, Kurmis versus<\/p>\n
yadavs     and became        inimical to        each other. In his<\/p>\n
submission, in cases of group rivalries, there is a<\/p>\n
tendency to falsely implicate innocent persons. He<\/p>\n
has    placed     reliance       on   the     judgments     reported       in<\/p>\n
A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 4 (Budhwa v. State of M.P.) and<\/p>\n
A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1949 (Bijay Singh v. State of Bihar).<\/p>\n
The contention is stated only to be rejected.                            There<\/p>\n
is no evidence on record to support this submission.<\/p>\n
On the contrary, P.W.2 has stated in his deposition<\/p>\n
that the murder of Sudhir Mahto had not led to any<\/p>\n
perpetual group rivalry and enmity. Paragraph 17 of<\/p>\n
his deposition is reproduced hereinbelow:<\/p>\n
           “17.tc fot; ( bl okn ds ezrd ugha ) dk eqdnek py
\n      jgk Fkk rks eqdnes dh dkjjokbZ ns[kus eSa U;k;ky; esa vkrk
\n      Fkk@ ,slh ckr ugha gS fd ml eqdnes ds    dze
\n                                                 z esa ,d tkfrokn dk
\n      ekgkSy gks x;k Fkk ftlesa dqjeh ,d rjQ rFkk Xokyk nwljh vksj gks
\n      x;s Fks@”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                  Furthermore,           culpability           of          the\n\nappellants        has       been      clearly        established            by\n\nsubstantive       evidence.        The      reported    judgments          are\n\ninapplicable to the present case.\n\n<\/pre>\n
32.               Some argument was advanced also on the<\/p>\n
question of motive. It appears that Sudhir Mahto was<\/p>\n
killed at Nakatpura and people of the Mahto community<\/p>\n
entertained doubts that Vijay Yadav was instrumental<\/p>\n
in the murder of Sudhir Mahto. The motive is thus
\n                              51<\/span><\/p>\n
established. In any case, law is well settled that<\/p>\n
motive need not necessarily be proved to establish<\/p>\n
the culpability of the accused. It often happens that<\/p>\n
the    accused       alone        knows     what        moved     him     to     a<\/p>\n
particular     course       of     action.        The    evidence       of     the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses in the present case establishes<\/p>\n
the motive on the part of the accused persons to kill<\/p>\n
Vijay Yadav. In any case, the murder of Vijay Yadav<\/p>\n
has been fully established on the basis of evidence<\/p>\n
on record de horse motive.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
33.              Learned counsel for the appellants has<\/p>\n
also    contended       that        Indra        Deo     Yadav     had       been<\/p>\n
interrogated      by    the       police        who    had   mentioned         the<\/p>\n
names of Dinesh and Devendra as culprits but he did<\/p>\n
not name the six appellants. It appears to us in view<\/p>\n
of the materials on record that the police had raided<\/p>\n
the houses of Dinesh and Devendra who were absconding<\/p>\n
and did not pursue it any further. It appears to us<\/p>\n
that this does not adversely affect the prosecution<\/p>\n
case because the I.O. was able to solve the mystery<\/p>\n
and    were   able     to    trace        the    accused        persons      with<\/p>\n
materials to support the charge-sheet. The police did<\/p>\n
not, therefore, feel the necessity of pursuing Indra<\/p>\n
Deo, Dinesh and Devendra.\n<\/p>\n
34.              The    six       persons        who    came     out    of     the<\/p>\n
clinic of Dr. Ram Nandan had surely stood at the
\n                           52<\/span><\/p>\n
driver\u201fs    gate,    behind         Vijay    Yadav,      and   had    not<\/p>\n
committed    any     overt      act.        Paragraph     30     of   the<\/p>\n
deposition of P.W.6 is reproduced hereinbelow:<\/p>\n
               “30.Mk0 jke uUnu ds nok[kkuk ls tks N% vkneh
\n      vk;s os xksyh vkfn ugh pyk;s”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            Even if it is conceded that the six persons<\/p>\n
who had emerged from the clinic of Dr. Ram Nandan and<\/p>\n
all or a few of them were armed, the police could<\/p>\n
have filed charge-sheet against them under section<\/p>\n
302 read with section 149 of the IPC. The police,<\/p>\n
however, in exercise of its powers of investigation<\/p>\n
and formation of opinion did not submit charge-sheet<\/p>\n
against    them    which,      if   challenged      at    that    stage,<\/p>\n
could have been examined by the court. It remained<\/p>\n
unchallenged       and,     therefore,         submission        of   the<\/p>\n
charge-sheet excluding them became final. Law is well<\/p>\n
settled that if a person has been wrongly let off,<\/p>\n
then that does not become a ground for acquittal of<\/p>\n
the   charge-sheeted           persons.       The     contention       is<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
35.            Learned counsel for the appellants has<\/p>\n
further submitted that the bus had stopped in a busy<\/p>\n
area of Muhammadpur where a large number of local<\/p>\n
persons had assembled, none of whom has been examined.<\/p>\n
It is common experience that people by and large keep<\/p>\n
away from criminal cases to avoid the harassment of
\n                      53<\/span><\/p>\n
police station and courts and also to avoid the wrath<\/p>\n
of the accused persons. The deceased was obviously of<\/p>\n
a different village and, therefore, they may not have<\/p>\n
been much aggrieved, or concerned about him. Law is<\/p>\n
well settled that non-examination of one or the other<\/p>\n
witnesses is not of much consequence. The credibility<\/p>\n
of the prosecution witnesses is of vital importance.<\/p>\n
Supreme Court has observed in State of Bihar Vs. Ram<\/p>\n
Padarath   Singh   (supra),      that   veracity     of    eye-<\/p>\n
witnesses cannot be doubted on the ground that no<\/p>\n
independent    witness    from   the    nearby     place   was<\/p>\n
examined. Paragraph 10 of the judgment is reproduced<\/p>\n
hereinbelow:\n<\/p>\n
       “10. The High Court also rejected the
\n       evidence of the eye-witnesses on the
\n       ground that no independent witnesses
\n       from the nearby place namely Koria
\n       Haibatpur,    were    examined     by  the
\n       prosecution. According to the High
\n       Court, it created a doubt regarding the
\n       eye-witnesses being genuine and their
\n       evidence being truthful. The High Court
\n       failed to appreciate that the incident
\n       had happened near the embankment at a
\n       little distance from Koria Haibatpur
\n       Chowk. Nothing was brought out in the
\n       evidence of any of the prosecution
\n       witnesses, including the investigating
\n       officer, to indicate that any other
\n       person was present near the place of
\n       the incident or that he had seen the
\n       incident. In absence of such material
\n       on record, the High Court was not
\n       justified    in    assuming     and   then
\n       proceeding     on    the     basis    that
\n       independent witnesses must have been
\n       available   and    yet   they    were  not
\n       examined   by    the   prosecution.    The
\n                           54<\/span><\/p>\n
        prosecution had examined two persons
\n        Navin Rai and Biso Kunwar who were
\n        passing by the Koria Haibatpur Chowk.
\n        There is nothing on record to show that
\n        they were in any manner connected with
\n        Subhash and his brothers or inimical to
\n        the accused. If independent persons
\n        were not willing to tell the police
\n        that they had seen the incident, the
\n        prosecution cannot be blamed for not
\n        examining independent persons as eye-
\n        witnesses and veracity of the evidence
\n        of the witnesses examined as eye-
\n        witnesses cannot be doubted on that
\n        ground. The High Court was, therefore,
\n        not   justified  in   disbelieving  the
\n        evidence of the eye-witnesses on this
\n        ground. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                     (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
36.             Learned    counsel   for    the      appellants   has<\/p>\n
further submitted that the evidence of P.W.6 (Budhram),<\/p>\n
the informant,     to the effect that Hira Kotwal lodged<\/p>\n
a report with Asthawa Police Station which has been<\/p>\n
withheld by the prosecution because it was contrary to<\/p>\n
the   present    prosecution    case.      It   is    difficult    to<\/p>\n
accept the submission because there is no evidence on<\/p>\n
record to show that he had lodged a first information<\/p>\n
report in writing. The deposition really creates the<\/p>\n
impression that he had orally informed Asthawa Police<\/p>\n
Station of the occurrence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
37              Learned counsel for the appellants next<\/p>\n
submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses, who<\/p>\n
are all co-villagers, made any attempt to protect and<\/p>\n
save Vijay. The persons present there, including those
\n                          55<\/span><\/p>\n
of Nakatpura, must have felt over-whelmed by the brute<\/p>\n
force at the command of such a large number of persons<\/p>\n
\u201enks dksl\u201e away from their village. All of them were<\/p>\n
completely unarmed and must have felt helpless. Any<\/p>\n
interference or attempt to help Vijay would have meant<\/p>\n
inviting death.       P.W. 6 has stated in his deposition<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n
               25. “…eSu
\n                         a s Mj ls fot; dks NwM+kus dk iz;Ru
\n      ugha fd;k…”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “27. eqgEeniqj esa esjh tku&igpiu ds yksx gS@
\n      eSu
\n        a s cl ls mrjdj eqgEeniqj ds dqN vkneh dks dgk fd fot;
\n      dks cpkus dk mik; fd;k tk; ij os cksys fd gels D;k dgrs
\n      gks@ eqgEeniqj es Hkh ;kno yksx gS@
\n                                        a   …fot; cl ls >kad
\n      jgk Fkk@ mlus geyksxksa dks enn ds fy;s iqdkjk@ eSu
\n                                                        a s dgk fd
\n      eSa D;k d#a D;k mik; gS@ esjk dksbZ mik; mUgsa cpkus dk ugha
\n      pyk@”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               31. “ogka mifLFkr ;k=h yksx ,oa nqdkunkj ?kVuk
\n      dks pqipki ns[krs jgs@ dksbZ Hkh vkneh ;k dksbZ nqdkunkj
\n      eqnkygksa dks jksdFkke djus ogka ugh vk;k@”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               It appears to us on a perusal of the<\/p>\n
entire materials on record including the extracted<\/p>\n
portion of the evidence of P.W.6 that the people felt<\/p>\n
over-whelmed by the brute force at the command of the<\/p>\n
accused persons who were afraid of losing their own<\/p>\n
lives, felt helpless, and did not intercede on behalf<\/p>\n
of the deceased.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
38.             Learned       counsel        for     the     appellant<\/p>\n
Krishna Murari has adopted the arguments advanced by<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant Arun Mahto. He has,
\n                           56<\/span><\/p>\n
however, submitted that neither the Fardbeyan, nor<\/p>\n
P.W.6 in his deposition, mention the name of Krishna<\/p>\n
Murari. It appears to us that the correct position is<\/p>\n
that the Fardbeyan as well as P.W.6 state that there<\/p>\n
was a sixth person whose name he was unable to recall<\/p>\n
whom he will be able to recognise on seeing him, and<\/p>\n
not that there was no sixth person. In view of the<\/p>\n
materials      on    record,    Krishna       Murari     was     charge-<\/p>\n
sheeted. P.Ws.2, 3, 5 and 8 have stated the name of<\/p>\n
Krishna Murari as the sixth accused. The contention<\/p>\n
is, therefore, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
39.                 Learned    counsel        for   the        remaining<\/p>\n
appellants     have    adopted   the     arguments       advanced     by<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant Arun Mahto. They<\/p>\n
have advanced some arguments in addition which have<\/p>\n
really been covered by the contentions advanced on<\/p>\n
behalf    of   Arun    Mahto   and,    therefore,       do     not   need<\/p>\n
separate consideration.\n<\/p>\n
40.             In the result, the appeals are dismissed<\/p>\n
and the impugned conviction and sentences are hereby<\/p>\n
upheld. Arun Mahto is convicted under section 302 of<\/p>\n
the   IPC,      and      sentenced       to     undergo         rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for life. The remaining accused persons<\/p>\n
are convicted under section 302 read with section 149<\/p>\n
of the IPC. I am mindful of the position that the<\/p>\n
learned     trial     court    has    convicted        the     remaining
\n                                         57<\/span><\/p>\n
             appellants under section 302 read with section 34 of<\/p>\n
             the   IPC.     Law    is   well   settled    that    in     appropriate<\/p>\n
             cases, the conviction under section 302 and 34 of the<\/p>\n
             IPC can be converted into one under section 302 read<\/p>\n
             with section 149 of the IPC provided no prejudice has<\/p>\n
             occurred to them. We see none in this case.                      In view<\/p>\n
             of    the     presence     of     five    persons,       which     is    an<\/p>\n
             essential       ingredient        of     section     149     IPC,       the<\/p>\n
             remaining appellants are convicted under section 302<\/p>\n
             read with Section 149 of the IPC, and are sentenced<\/p>\n
             to    undergo       rigorous    imprisonment       for     life.    Their<\/p>\n
             bails       bonds    are   cancelled       and     are     directed      to<\/p>\n
             surrender before the learned trial court forthwith to<\/p>\n
             serve out the remainder of their sentences.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                                    (Sudhir Kumar Katriar,J.)\n\nS.M.M.Alam, J.     I agree.\n\n\n\n                                                    (Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.)\n\n\n\n   Patna High Court, Patna\n   Dated the 16th day of September, 2008\n   S.K.Pathak\/ (A.F.R.)\n 58<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Kaushlendra Prasad @ Kaushal M vs State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2008 Author: S.K.Katriar CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.138 OF 1988 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO.178 OF 1988 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO.182 OF 1988 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO.183 OF 1988 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO.184 OF 1988 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKaushlendra Prasad @ Kaushal M vs State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kaushlendra Prasad @ Kaushal M vs State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-28T18:07:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"63 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kaushlendra Prasad @ Kaushal M vs State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-28T18:07:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":12411,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Kaushlendra Prasad @ Kaushal M vs State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-28T18:07:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kaushlendra Prasad @ Kaushal M vs State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kaushlendra Prasad @ Kaushal M vs State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kaushlendra Prasad @ Kaushal M vs State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-28T18:07:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"63 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kaushlendra Prasad @ Kaushal M vs State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-28T18:07:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008"},"wordCount":12411,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008","name":"Kaushlendra Prasad @ Kaushal M vs State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-28T18:07:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaushlendra-prasad-kaushal-m-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kaushlendra Prasad @ Kaushal M vs State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187546","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187546"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187546\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}