http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: JAG NARAIN DUSADH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/11/1997

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI, J.      Criminal Appeal  No.422/89 has  been filed  by original accused Nos.  2 and  Criminal Appeal  No.423/89 is  filed by accused Nos.  2 to  4 and 6 to 8. The accused No. 5 had also applied to  this Court  for leave  to appeal but his SLP was dismissed. The  original accused  No.1  has  not  filed  any appeal against his conviction. Accused No. 8 is appellant in both the appeals.      All these  9 accused  were tried  along with others for causing death  of Nanahaku  Pandey in  prosecution of  their common object.  The trial court acquitted accused Nos. 10 to 15 and  convicted accused  Nos. 1  to 9.  All of them except accused No.8  were  convicted  under  Section  148  IPC  and accused No.8  was convicted  under Section  147 IPC.  All of them were  convicted under Section 302/149 IPC. Accused No.1 Jwala and  accused No.5  Hardeo were  also  convicted  under Section 02 read with Section 34 IPC . Accused Nos. 1,2,3,5,6 and 7 were also convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act.      In order  to prove its case prosecution had relied upon the evidence  of 4  eye witnesses.  P.Ws. 1,2,3 and 4. P.W.1 was the  brother of  the deceased,  P.W. 2 was the father of the deceased and P.Ws. 3 and 4 were the near relatives. P.W. 3   was not believed by the trial court and relying upon the evidence of  P.Ws.   1,2 and 4 the trial court convicted the accused as  stated above. Accused Nos. 9 to 14 who have been referred to in the judgment as Pandeys were given benefit of doubt as they were shown as accused on the basis of the only allegation that  they were    helping  and  instigating  the harijans, accused  Nos. 1  to 9,  who had on the date of the incident gone to the field of the informant and the deceased and committed  the said offence. As there was no evidence to show any participation by them in commission of t he offence they were given benefit of doubt.      The High  Court on  reappreciation of evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 and  4 held  that their  evidence is consistent and does not suffer  from any  infirmity at all. The said 3 witnesses were in  their own  field along  with the  deceased and they were cutting  grass when  the  incident  took  place.  Their evidence clearly establishes the fact that they should lease

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the land  as it  really belong  to Ambika, accused No. 3. On being so  told, the deceased replied by saying that the land belonged to  them and  that this dispute was already settled by the Panch and there was Sulahanama in that behalf. It was at that  item that  accused Jwala  dn accused  Hardeo  fired shots from their guns and injured Nanahaku.      Both the  courts below  have believed  P.Ws. 1,2 and 4. What is  contended by  the learned counsel for the appellant is that  as the  courts have disbelieved their evidence with respect to  the other accused, their evidence could not have formed the basis for the conviction of the appellants. We do not find  any substance in its contention. As stated earlier the allegation  against those  accused  was  that  they  had colluded with the harijans, that is, accused Nos. 1 to 9 and in  pursuance   of  that  collusion  the  said  offence  was committed. But  there was no evidence to prove that they had gone to  the field  where the  incident had  taken place. No other contention  was raised  by the learned counsel for the appellant. As we do not find any substance in these appeals, they are  dismissed. The appellants are ordered to surrender to  custody  to  serve  out  the  remaining  part  of  their sentence.