LexRAMASHISH YADAV AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAMASHISH Y ADA V AND ORS. A v. ST A TE OF BIHAR SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 [G.B. PATTANAIK AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] B Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Ss. 3021149, 302134, 324134, s.141-Unlawful assemb~Murder-Land dispute between complainant side and accused persons-Accused 13 in C number,; some armed with gun, gandasa, knife and lathis-One accused shot dead a person on complainant side-Two others gave gandasa blows to another person on complainant side as a result the victim died-Two more accused caused knife injuries to complainant-Trial Court convicted all the accused uls. 3021149 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life-High Court acquitted 5 and convicted remaining 7 u/s, 302, 3021149 and 302134; D one of the accused died pending appeal-Held, from the prosecution evidence it is not established that accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly- Their conviction by taking recourse to s.149 is unsustainable-Conviction u/s. 3021149 set aside-Accused who fired gunshot causing death of the person on complainant side convicted uls. 302-Accused who caused death E of another person by giving him gandasa blows, convicted uls. 302134- These tr.ree accused sentenced to imprisonment for life-The other two accused who caused knife. injuries to the complainant convicted u/s. 324134 and sentenced to imprisonment for two years. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. f 719-722of1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.96 ofthe Patna High Court in Crl. A. Nos. 543/88, l/89, 13 and 30of1989. M.P. Jha and Ram Ekbal Roy for the Appellants. B.B. Singh for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered by : Seven accused appellants who were tried along with 6 others for having 285 G H 286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A committed an offence under section 302/149 and some other offences were ultimately convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under section 302/149 and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for having caused the murder of Mundrika and Ram Tapeshwar yadav. Out of the 13 accused persons who • were convicted by the learned Session Judge, one expired after the judgment B of the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court considered the case of all the accused persons who stood convicted by the learned Sessions Judge and acquitted 5 of them but maintained the conviction of rest 7 under sections 304, 302/149, 302/34 and other offences and as such these appeals are by the 7 appellants. According to the prosecution case these accused persons were ploughing the land claiming the land to be theirs on the date of occurrence C and smpe of the accused persons had a gun while some others had weapons like gandasa and lathis. When the informant and some others belonging to his party went and protested as to why they are ploughing the land belonging to the informant the accused persons asserted that it is their land and, therefore, they would continue to plough the land in question. On this score there was some altercation and then accused Ram Das Yadav brought out the ' D gun and fired which hit Mundrika and Mundrika died at the spot. Two other accused persons, namely, Ram Pravesh Yadav and Ramanand Yadav suddenly ·came and caught hold of Tapeshwar Yadav belonging to the complainant party and at that point of time Samundar Yadav and Sheo Layak Yadav came with gandasa in their hand and gave blows on the head of Tapeshwar by E means of gandasa. The informant was caught hold by Ramanand Yadav, Sukhdeo Yadav, Sheo Layak Yadav and Ram Ishwar Yadav who has already died, gave a lathi blow on the wrist and Ramanand Yadav gave a chhura blow. On the basis of information given by PW .1, the police stared investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, as already stated. The prosecution case is sought to be proved through the evidence of the 3 eye witnesses PWs. l, 3 F and 4. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of the aforesaid eye witnesses came to hold that all the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object of the said assembly accused Ram Das Yadav had fired the gun as a result of which Mundrika died and, therefore convicted all of them under section 302/149. Accused Ram Das G Yadav who had given the gun blow was convicted under section 302. On appeal, the High Court re-appreciated the evidence of the three eye witnesses PWs. I, 3 and 4 and came to the conclusion that thei
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.