1997 INSC 1109
                                             Jag Narain Dusadh & Anr.

                                                           Vs

                                                 The State of Bihar

                                         (G. T. Nanavati, V. N. Khare JJ)

                                                      27.11.1997

                                                     JUDGMENT

NANAVATI, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No.422/89 has been filed by original accused Nos. 2 and 8 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 an appellant in both the appeals.

2 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 302
read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were also convicted under Section 27 of
the Arms Act. 3 In order to prove its case prosecution had relied upon the evidence of 4 eye
witneses. 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 the offence they were given benefit of doubt. 4. 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 the accused went to that field and told the complainant that they should
leave the land as it really belongs 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 a Sulahanama in that behalf. It was at that time that accused Jwala and accused Hardeo
fired shots from their guns and injured Nanahaku. 5 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 this 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.