Laxmanpur Bathe Patna High Court Judgement

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Death Reference No.5 of 2010

(Reference, Appeal against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 07.04.2010 passed in Sessions Case
No. 2 of 1999 by 1
st
Additional Sessions Judge, Patna)

===========================================================
The State of Bihar
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Girja Singh, son of Late Patiram Singh (since dead)
2. Surendra Singh, son of Mahadeo Singh
3. Ashok Singh, son of late Indradeo Singh
4. Gopal Sharan Singh, son of late Awadhesh Singh
5. Baleshwar Singh, son of Parshuram Singh
6. Dharma Singh, son of late Shiv Singh
7. Dwarika Singh, son of late Ram Naresh Singh
8. Bijendra Singh, son of late Dudhyanath Singh
9. Nawal Singh, son of late Ram Bhajan Singh
10. Baliram Singh, son of late Awadhesh Singh
11. Shiv Mohan Sharma, son of late Mangal Singh (since dead)
12. Nandu Singh son of Baleshwar Singh
13. Pramod Singh son of Gopal Sharan
14. Shatrughan Singh, son of Ram Eqwal Sharma
15. Ram Kewal Sharma @ Kawal son of late Shita Singh
16. Nand Singh, son of Kameshwar Singh
... .... Respondents
with

Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 465 of 2010
===========================================================
Ravindra Singh, son of Sri Rajeshwar Singh @ Rameshwar Singh, Village-
Bichiaon, Police Station-Sandesh, District- Bhojpur at Arrah.

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar

.... .... Respondent
with

===========================================================
Nandu Singh, son of Baleshwar Singh, resident of Village-Laxamanpur Bathe,
Police Station Mehandiya (Parasia), District-Arwal.
.... .... Appellant
Patna High Court D. REF. No.5 of 2010 dt.09-10-2013

2
Versus
The State of Bihar

with

===========================================================
Shatrughan Singh S/O Sri Ram Eqbal Sharma R/O Village- Laxmanpur Bathe,
P.S.-Mehandia, District-Arwal.

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar

with

===========================================================
Mithilesh Sharma, son of Vijay Sarma, Village-Kamta. P.S. and District-Arwal.

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar

with

===========================================================
Dharichhan Singh, son of Late Jhulan Singh @ Binod Prasad Singh, resident of
Village - Lakshmanpur, Bathe, P.S. Parasi ( Mehandia earlier ), District Arwal

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar

with

===========================================================
Babloo Sharma, son of Dwarika Sharma, resident of village Kamta, Police Station
Parasi, District - Arwal
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar

3

with

===========================================================
Pramod Singh @ Pramod Kr. Singh, son of Late Sankh Singh, resident of village -
Ekwari, P.S. Sahar, District - Bhojpur

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar

with

===========================================================
Ashok Sharma, son of Late Ram Naresh Sharma, resident of Village - Kamata,
P.S.- Mehandia, Distt.- Arwal

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar

with

===========================================================
Surendra Singh, son of Sri Ram Pyar Singh, Resident of Village - Kamta , P.S.-
Mehandia, in the District of Arwal .

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar

with

===========================================================
Navin Kumar S/O Lallan Prasad Singh, resident of Village Chanda, P.S.
Mehandia, District - Arwal

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar


4
With

===========================================================
Sunil Kumar S/O Kamal Narayan Sharma Resident Of Village- Chanda, P.S.-
Mehandia, Dist.- Arwal

.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar

.... .... Respondent/s
with

===========================================================
Nand Singh S/O Late Kameshwar Singh R/O Vill. Laxmanpur Bathe, P.S.
Mehandia, Distt. Arwal

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar

with

===========================================================
Chandeshwar Singh son of Late Kameshwar Singh, resident of Village
Laxmanpur Bathe, P.S. Mehendia at present Parasi, District - Arwal
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
with

===========================================================
1. Gopal Sharan Singh S/O late Awadhesh Singh R/O Vill. Lakhshmanpur Bathe,
P.S. Parasi ( Mehandia Earlier ) Distt. Arwal
2. Balram Singh S/O late Awadhesh Singh R/O Vill. Lakhshmanpur Bathe, P.S.
Parasi ( Mehandia Earlier ) Distt. Arwal
3. Pramod Kumar Singh S/O Gopal Sharan Singh R/O Vill. Lakhshmanpur Bathe,
4. Dwarika Singh S/O late Ram Naresh Singh R/O Vill. Lakhshmanpur Bathe,

.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar


5
with

===========================================================
Ram Kewal Sharma S/O Late Shital Sharma @ Late Shita Sharma R/O Vill.-
Lakshmanpur Bathe,P.S.-Parasi(Mehandia Earlier),Dist.-Arwal.

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar


with

===========================================================
Nawal Singh S/O Late Ram Bhajani Singh @ Late Bhajani Singh R/O Vill.
Laxamanpur Bathe, P.S. Mehandia ( Parasi ), Distt. Arwal

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar


with

===========================================================
Ashok Singh S/O Late Indradeo Singh R/O Vill. Laxmanpur, Bathe, P.S. Mehandia,
Distt. Arwal

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar


with

===========================================================
Bijendra Singh S/O Late Sidh Nath Singh R/O Vill. Laxmanpur Bathe, P.O. Kamta,
P.S. Mehandia ( Parasi ) Distt. Arwal

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar



6
With

===========================================================
Surendra Singh S/O Mahadeo Singh R/O Vill.- Laxmanpur Bathe,P.S.-Parasi,Dist.-
Arwal.

.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar

with

===========================================================
1. Girija Singh S/O Late Patiram Singh R/O Vill.- Laxmanpur Bathe,P.S.-
Mehandiya (Parasia),Dist.-Arwal.
2. Baleshwar Singh S/O Late Parsuram Singh R/O Vill.- Laxmanpur Bathe,P.S.-
Mehandiya (Parasia),Dist.-Arwal.

.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar

===========================================================
Appearance :
(In D. REF. No. 5 of 2010)
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Abhinav Mukerji, Advocate
M/s. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, Dilip Kumar Sinha, S.C. Mishra,
Abhimanyu Sharma, Ajay Mishra & Ms. S.B. Verma, A.P.Ps.
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 465 of 2010)
For the Appellant : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate, M/s. Lakshmi
Kant Sharma, Rajesh Kumar, Ravish Chandra, Advocates
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 517 of 2010)
For the Appellant : M/s Surendra Singh, B.P. Pandey, Sr. Advocates,
M/s Pramod Kumar & Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocates
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 528 of 2010)
For the Appellant : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Advocate &
Mr. Patan Jali, Advocate
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 563 of 2010)
For the Appellant : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate, M/s. Lakshmi
Kant Sharma, Rajesh Kumar, Ravish Chandra, Advocates
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 565 of 2010)
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, M/s Manindra
Kishore Singh & Smt. Meena Singh, Advocates
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 593 of 2010)
For the Appellant : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, M/s Atal
Bihari, Birendra Kr. Singh, Love Kush Kumar & Mrs.
Jyotsna Singh, Advocates

7

(In CR. APP (DB) No. 618 of 2010)
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, Sr. Advocate, M/s Abhay Kumar
Roy, Binod Kumar Singh, Gaurav Kumar, Tripurari
Sharan, Advocates
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 619 of 2010)
For the Appellant : M/s Surendra Singh, B.P. Pandey, Sr. Advocates,
M/s Pramod Kumar & Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocates
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 621 of 2010)
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, Sr. Advocate, M/s Abhay Kumar
Roy, Binod Kumar Singh, Gaurav Kumar, Tripurari
Sharan, Advocates
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 641 of 2010)
For the Appellant : M/s Amarnath Singh & Ashok Kumar, Advocates
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 658 of 2010)
For the Appellant : M/s Amarnath Singh & Ashok Kumar, Advocates
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 471 of 2010)
For the Appellant : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Patan
Jali, Advocate

(In CR. APP (DB) No. 845 of 2010)
For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 476 of 2010)
For the Appellants : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, M/s Atal

(In CR. APP (DB) No. 479 of 2010)
For the Appellant : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, M/s Atal
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 498 of 2010)
For the Appellant : M/s Surendra Singh, B.P. Pandey, Sr. Advocates, M/s
Pramod Kumar & Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocates
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 499 of 2010)
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 501 of 2010)
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 514 of 2010)
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 516 of 2010)
For the Appellant : M/s Surendra Singh, B.P. Pandey, Sr. Advocates, M/s
Pramod Kumar & Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocates
(In all Cr. Appeals)
For the State : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, M/s Abhinav Mukerji,
Advocate

M/s Ashwani Kumar Sinha, Dilip Kumar Sinha, S.C. Mishra,

8
Abhimanyu Sharma, Ajay Mishra & Ms. S.B. Verma,
A.P.Ps.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA)
Date: 09 -10-2013

The Death Reference and 20 Criminal Appeals arise out
of judgment/ order dated 07.04.2010 passed by 1
st
Additional
Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1999, arising out of
Mehandia P.S. Case No. 126 of 1997, whereunder Accused Nos. 1 to
26, namely, Girja Singh, Surendra Singh, Ashok Singh, Gopal
Sharan Singh, Baleshwar Singh, Dwarika Singh, Bijendra Singh,
Nawal Singh, Balram Singh, Nandu Singh, Shatrughan Singh, Nand
Singh, Pramod Kr. Singh, son of Gopal Sharan, Dharichan Singh,
Chandeshwar Singh, Ram Kewal Sharma @ Kawal, Dharma Singh,
Shiv Mohan Sharma, Ashok Sharma, Babloo Sharma, Mithilesh
Sharma, Navin Kumar, Ravindra Singh, Sunil Kumar, Pramod Singh,
son of Late Sankh Singh and Surendra Singh have been convicted for
the charge under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 read with sections
120B, 460, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the
Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the
Act). Having convicted the aforesaid accused, learned trial court
sentenced accused Nos. 1 to 16, namely, Girja Singh, Surendra

9
Singh, Ashok Singh, Gopal Sharan Singh, Baleshwar Singh, Dharma
Singh, Dwarika Singh, Bijendra Singh, Nawal Singh, Baliram Singh,
Shiv Mohan Sharma, Nandu Singh, Pramod Singh, Shatrughan
Singh, Ram Kewal Sharma @ Kawal and Nand Singh to suffer death
sentence for the offence under Sections 302/149 read with section
120B of the Indian Penal Code. Accused nos. 17 to 26, namely,
Ashok Sharma, Babloo Sharma, Mithilesh Sharma, Dharichan Singh,
Chandeshwar Singh, Navin Kumar, Ravindra Kumar, Surendra
Singh, Sunil Kumar, Pramod Singh have been directed to undergo
R.I. for life under Sections 302/149 read with Section 120B of the
Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of ` 50,000/- each. Accused nos.
1 to 26 have been further directed to undergo R.I. of one, two, five
years with fine of ` 5,000/-, ten years with fine of ` 25,000/- each
under Sections 147, 148, 460, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code
respectively. Accused Nos. 1 to 26 have further been sentenced to
undergo R.I. of one year, one year with fine of ` 1000/- each under
Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The
sentences imposed on accused Nos. 1 to 26 have, however, been
directed to run concurrently. Appellants 1. Ravindra Singh, 2. Nandu
Singh, 3. Shatrughan Singh, 4. Mithilesh Sharma, 5. Dharichhan
Singh, 6.Babloo Sharma, 7. Pramod Singh @ Pramod Kr. Singh son
of Late Sankh Singh 8. Ashok Sharma, 9. Surendra Singh, 10. Navin

10
Kumar, 11. Sunil Kumar, 12. Nand Singh, 13. Chandeshwar Singh
14. Gopal Sharan Singh, 15. Balram Singh 16. Pramod Kumar Singh
son of Gopal Sharan Singh, 17. Dwarika Singh, 18. Ram Kewal
Sharma, 19. Nawal Singh, 20. Ashok Singh, 21. Bijendra Singh 22.
Surendra Singh son of Mahadeo Singh 23. Girija Singh, 24.
Baleshwar Singh are Accused No. 23, 10, 11, 21, 14, 20, 25, 19, 26,
22, 24, 12, 15, 4, 9, 13, 6, 16, 8, 3, 7, 2, 1, 5 respectively. The other
accused Nos. 27 to 45, namely, Awani Bhushan Kumar, Ram Eqbal
Sharma, Dharikshan Chaudhary, Butan Chaudhary @ Harendra
Chaudhary, Chandra Shekhar Chaudhary, Arvind Kumar, Ramesh
Singh, Sri Niwash Pandey, Ajay Singh, Dudul Singh, Bhagelu Singh,
Munshi Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Saroj Rai @ Saroj Singh, Bhola Rai,
Sidhyanath Rai, Suresh Rai, Jata Singh and Hridaya Singh have been
acquitted of the aforesaid charge.
2. Reference of Accused No.17, Dharma Singh is not
being considered as from the judgment itself it appears that he
absconded on 07.04.2010 and was not available for receiving the
sentence on the same day. During the pendency of the reference,
Accused No.1, Girja Singh and Accused No. 18 Shiv Mohan Sharma
died on 14.8.2012, 16.9.2010 respectively. After confirming their
death, reference made, appeal filed by the two has been directed to
abate against them under order dated 8.2.2012.

11

3. Prosecution case of Mehandia P.S. Case No. 126 of
1997, as set out in the fardbeyan of Binod Paswan, son of Ram Chela
Paswan of village Laxamanpur Bathe, P.S. Mehandia, District
Jehanabad recorded by S.I. Akhilendra Kumar Singh, Officer
Incharge, Mehandia P.S. on 02.12.1997 at 9.30 A.M. in village
Laxmanpur Bathe is that in the night of 01/02.12.1997 at about
10.30 P.M., informant, his family members as also other villagers
having taken their meal were sleeping in their house(s), suddenly
heard indiscriminate shots being fired. Informant, his family
members awoke and were coming out of their rooms, suddenly 10 -
15 miscreants armed with rifle forcibly entered into his house and
resorted to indiscriminate firing killing seven of his family members,
namely, Kunwar Paswan, Amar Paswan, Rita Devi, Kabutari Devi,
Anoj Paswan, Raj Rani Devi and Rohan Paswan. While the firing
was going on, informant somehow saved himself by going behind the
earthen Storage. After killing the family members of the informant,
miscreants went away. After half an hour of the incident, slogan
proclaiming victory of Ranvir Baba was heard whereafter informant
climbed the roof and saw about 150 miscreants of Ranvir Sena armed
with rifle. From amongst the miscreants informant identified
in the torchlight his 19 co-villagers, namely, (1) Phanish

12
Kumar Singh, son of Birendra Singh (2)
Ashok Singh son of Indradeo Singh (3) Anjani Singh son of
Dwarika Singh (4) Pramod Kumar Singh son of Gopal Singh (5)
Gopal Singh son of Awadhesh Singh (6) Baliram Singh son of
Awadhesh Singh (7) Dharikshan Singh son of Jhulan Singh (8)
Surendra Singh son of Mahavir Singh (9) Dwarika Singh son of
Bodha Singh (10) Nand Singh son of Late Kameshwar Singh (11)
Chandeshwar Singh son of Kameshwar Singh (12) Kawal Singh son
of Late Shital Singh (13) Nawal Singh son of Majani Singh (14)
Bhukhan Singh son of Ramdhyan Singh (15) Girja Singh son of Late
Patiram Singh (16) Nandu Singh son of Baleshwar Singh (17)
Baleshwar Singh son of late Parshuram Singh (18) Bijendra Singh
son of Sidhnath Singh (19) Shatrughan Singh son of Ram Ekbal
Singh, all of village Laxmanpur Bathe and 7 miscreants of village
Kamta, namely, (20) Dharma Singh son of Shiv Shamra (21) Ashok
Sharma son of Naresh Sharma (22) Shiv Mohan Sharma son of
Mangal Sharma (23) Surendra Singh son of Rampyare Sharma (24)
Sudarshan Sharma son of Triveni Sharma (25) Babloo Sharma son of
Dwarika Sharma (26) Mithilesh Sharma son of Vijay Sharma. About
the other miscreants, informant claimed in the fardbeyan that he can
identify them by their face. It is further claimed in the fardbeyan that
miscreants while leaving the village raised slogan proclaiming the

13
victory of Ranvir Baba and went towards north/ Chhotki Kharaon
village after crossing rive Sone. After about half an hour of the
miscreants leaving the village informant heard weeping, wailing by
the villagers and then went to the house of his neighbour, Shiv
Bachan Ram where he found (1) Shiv Bachan Ram (2) Samudri Devi
wife of Shiv Bachan Ram (3) Raj Kumar Ram (4) Jayant Kumar (5)
Chhathiya Devi dead after having suffered gun shot injury. From the
house of Shiv Bachan Ram, informant went to the house of Ganeshi
Rajbansi where he found the dead body of (1) Prabha Devi wife of
Ganeshi Rajbansi (2) Jaimurti Devi wife of Laxman Rajbansi (3)
Kanti Devi wife of Surendra Rajbansi. From the house of Ganeshi
Rajbansi, informant went to the house of Debesh Rajbansi and found
the dead body of (1) Debesh Rajbansi (2) Sohar Rajbansi (3)
Kamlesh Rajbansi (4) Kalawati wife of Debesh Rajbansi (5) Malti
Devi wife of Kamlesh Rajbansi. From the house of Debesh Rajbansi,
informant went to the house of Laxman Rajbansi and found the dead
body of (1) Atwaru Devi wife of Laxman Rajbansi (2) Rupkali Devi
wife of Munni Rajbansi (3) Chhotelal Rajbansi (4) Domani Devi
wife of Ram Sudin Rajbansi (5) Sheela Devi daughter of Munni
Rajbansi (6) Sunita Kumari daughter of Ram Sudin. All the aforesaid
persons had suffered gun shot injury. From the house of Laxman
Rajbansi, informant went to the house of Yaduni Rajbansi and found

14
the dead body of (1) Raj Mania Devi wife of Yaduni Rajbansi (2)
Phul Kumari Devi wife of Bindeshwar Rajbansi (3) Chania daughter
of Bindeshwar (4) Raj Kumari Devi wife of Mutur Rajbansi (5)
Vishwanath Rajbansi (6) Saroj Kumari daughter of Mutur Rajbansi.
After having visited the house of his neighbours, informant went
around the village and found the dead body of (1 ) Garib Chandra
Chaudhary (2) Sanichar Chaudhary (3) Sona Devi wife of Sikandar
Chaudhar (4) Anita daughter of Sikandar Chaudhary (5) Savita
Kumari (6) Mahendra Chaudhary (7) Dhanrajia Devi wife of
Mahendra (8) Om Nath Chaudhary (9) Nanhak Chaudhary (10)
Munni Devi wife of Moti Chaudhary (11) Jagtar Chaudhary (12)
Meena Devi wife of Mahendra Chaudhary (13) Arvind (14) Sumitra
Kumari (15) Sita Kumari (16) Chunni Chaudhary (17) Manmatia
Devi wife of Chunni Chaudhary (18) Rampulis Mahto (19) Wasuti
Devi wife of Rampulis Mahto (20) Taregni Devi wife of Nagmani
Mahto (21) Bijendra Thakur. All the aforesaid persons were killed by
gun shot. It is further claimed in the fardbeyan that informant, 2-4
others raised alarm, but during the night none of the villagers came
out to help them. In the morning, informant further learnt that on the
northern bank of Sone river, which is within Sahar P.S., five persons
have been killed by slitting their neck. Besides those killed, there are
others, who have been injured and have gone for treatment.

15
According to the informant, other victims have also been abducted.
In the morning, others including police arrived and recorded
fardbeyan of the informant. In the penultimate paragraph of the
fardbeyan, informant claimed that the members of the Ranvir Sena in
order to establish their supremacy killed 58 persons by firing shot,
slitting their neck. Shyam Bihari Paswan, resident of village Injore,
P.S. Mehandia, brother-in-law of the informant is a witness to the
fardbeyan. On the basis of the fardbeyan, aforesaid Mehandia P.S.
Case No. 126 of 1997 dated 02.12.1997 for the offence under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 364, 302 of the Indian Penal Code
and 27 of the Arms Act was registered by S.I. Ajay Kumar Singh of
Mehandia P.S. on 2.12.1997 at 3.00 P.M. with endorsement that Shri
Dhar Mandal, SDPO, Arwal has already taken up its investigation at
the place of occurrence. After registration of the First Information
Report, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh forwarded the First Information
Report to the court of C.J.M., Jehanabad on 02.12.1997 itself through
special messenger but the First Information Report was received in
the court of C.J.M., Jehanabad on 04.12.1997 as would appear from
the endorsement made by the learned C.J.M., Jehanabad on the First
Information Report itself.
4. After recording of the fardbeyan, investigation was
taken up by Shri Dhar Mandal, SDPO, Arwal and on his instructions,

16
inquest report of the 58 deceased was prepared by S.I., Mehandia
P.S. and other Sub-Inspector(s) present at the place of occurrence and
blood stained earth/ sand, empties of the cartridges were also seized
from the place of occurrence vide seizure list Exts. 7- 7/13, 9 9/13,
10 10/10, 11 11/10 by the Officer Incharge, Mehandia P.S. and
other subordinate police officers present at the place of occurrence.
On the same day, Shri Dhar Mandal recorded further statement of the
informant. Having recorded the further statement of the informant,
Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal instructed his subordinates to
take the four injured, namely, Mahesh Rajbansi, Bimlesh Rajbansi,
Ramanuj Rajbansi and Mahurati Devi to the Government hospital for
treatment. In the light of the contents of the fardbeyan that the
miscreants had come from the side of Sahar P.S. and had also gone
towards that side i.e. village Chhotki Kharaon, Barki Kharaon,
Lodipur, Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal spoke to Officer-in-
charge Sahar P.S. and S.P. Bhojpur at 10.35 A.M. through wireless
and requested them to track the assailants who had gone towards
Sahar area. Investigating Officer having taken notice of the large
number of the deceased, requested the District Magistrate, Jehanabad
to make available a team of doctors at the place of occurrence itself
for conducting post-mortem of the deceased. At about 11 A.M. on
02.12.1997 itself, Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal proceeded

17
to inspect the 14 place(s) of occurrence, including southern, northern
bank of the river Sone in presence of the witnesses, including
Ramchela Paswan, father of the informant. On the southern bank of
the river Sone he found three dead bodies of Chanarik Chaudhary
son of Chulhan Chaudhary, his two sons, Gorakh Chaudhary and
Shiv Kailash Chaudhary with sign of dragging the dead bodies till
the river. On the northern bank of the river Sone he further found two
dead bodies of Naresh Chaudhary and Ram Niwas Chaudhary, both
sons of Mahesh Chaudhary near a hut where not only copious blood
was found on the bank, but also a boat anchored smeared with blood.
After inspecting the place of occurrence, including both the banks of
river Sone, Investigaing Officer Shri Dhar Mandal learnt through
wireless at 4.05 P.M. that formal First Information Report has
already been drawn and then spoke to Officer-in-charge, Sahar P.S.
at 4.15 P.M. requesting him to track the assailants who having
crossed the Sone river went towards Sahar area. On the same day at
about 5 P.M. he received the inquest report of the deceased, seizure
list with seized articles with supplementary case diary from
Akhilendra Kumar Singh and directed for safe custody of the seized
blood stained earth, empty cartridges in the Malkhana of the P.S. On
the same day at 6 P.M., he recorded the statement of Munni Devi
wife of Kaulu Rajbansi, Raj Ganesh Rajbansi son of Laxman

18
Rajbansi, Munni Rajbansi, son of Pappan Rajbansi, Yaduni Rajbansi
son of Deosharan Rajbansi. Having conducted the preliminary
investigation, Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal on 2.12.1997
took steps to arrest the fardbeyan named accused persons of village
Bathe, but they were found absconding. On 03.12.1997, Shri Dhar
Mandal took steps for the arrest of fardbeyan named accused,
resident of village Kamta, but they were also found absconding. On
03.12.1997 at about 8 AM, Shri Dhar Mandal recorded the statement
of Mutur Rajbansi, son of Yaduni Rajbansi, Dudhnath Chaudhary
son of Garib Chand Chaudhary, Sikandar Chaudhary son of Garib
Chand Chaudhary and on the same day at 5.25 P.M. arrested
Accused No. 3 Ashok Singh as also seized a double barrel gun from
the house of Accused no. 4, Gopal Singh and forwarded the arrested
accused as also seized double barrel gun to the P.S. at about 6.15
P.M. for being kept in the Hazat, Malkhana of the P.S. Having
forwarded the arrested accused and the gun to the P.S., Investigating
Officer Shri Dhar Mandal recorded the statement of three witnesses
i.e. signatory to the inquest report, namely, Dharmendra Yadav,
Kamaldeo Ram, Baijnath Prasad in the same evening at 6.30 P.M.
On 03.12.1997 at about 8.30 P.M., Investigating Officer Shri Dhar
Mandal proceeded to conduct raid and met officer-incharge, Sahar
P.S. During raid, all the fardbeyan named accused persons of village

19
Bathe were found absconding. Investigating Officer, however,
instructed officer-incharge, Mehandia P.S. to produce the arrested
accused Ashok Singh for his judicial remand. On 04.12.1997 at about
15.10 hours, Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Belwanti
Kumari, Sohrai Mahto and Anil Kumar and arrested Accused No. 23
Ravindra Kumar Singh, Awadhesh Singh. The two arrested accused
were produced for judicial remand on his instruction on 05.12.1997
at 6.45 hours. He also issued instruction for obtaining warrant,
attachment warrant against the absconding accused. On 05.12.1997
at about 9 AM recorded the statement of Laxman Rajbansi, Om
Prakash Paswan, Surendra Rajbansi. On 06.12.1997, Investigating
Officer Shri Dhar Mandal raided the school in village Kamta
wherefrom arrested Accused No. 2 Surendra Singh and Accused No.
5 Baleshwar Sharma and forwarded them for obtaining their judicial
remand. On the same day, Investigating Officer obtained orders for
execution of attachment warrant in presence of Magistrate. On
06.12.1997, Investigating Officer also examined Pancham and
Baidyanath Prasad. On 07.12.1997 at about 12.45 A.M Investigating
Officer Shri Dhar Mandal proceeded to conduct raid for the arrest of
absconding accused and in village Chanda arrested Accused No. 27
Awani Bhushan Kumar, Accused No. 22 Navin Kumar, Accused No.
24 Sunil Kumar, Accused No. 26 Surendra Singh and Accused No.

20
18 Shiv Mohan Singh but forwarded them on 8.12.1997 for their
judicial remand. Out of the five arrested accused from village
Chanda, Surendra Sharma and Shiv Mohan Singh are resident of
village Kamta. On 07.12.1997, he also received supplementary case
diary containing seizure list. Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal
recorded the statement of Yugal Ravidas and Subedar Ravidas on
08.12.1997. DIG, CID, Patna under memo no. 3829/C dated
09.12.1997, wireless message No. 3830 dated 09.12.1997 instructed
Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal to hand over investigation of
Mehandia P.S. Case No. 126 of 1997 to Sri Mirza Maksood Alam
Beg, Dy.S.P., CID, Patna who took over the investigation on
10.12.1997, but before handing over the investigation to Mirza
Maksood Alam Beg, Shri Dhar Mandal recorded the statement of
Krishna Chaudhary and Rama Chaudhary as also obtained surrender
slip of six fardbeyan named accused. Mirza Maksood Alam Beg
having taken charge of the investigation, perused the case diary of
the case maintained by the earlier Investigating Officer along with
his investigating team comprising of Inspector Indu Bhushan Prasad,
Inspector Anant Prakash Singh, Inspector Ashok Kumar Das,
Inspector Ram Sharan Chaudhary, S.I. Shyam Nandan Sharma, S.I.
Deo Narayan Mahto, S.I. Ravindra Nath Sharma, S.I. Dhananjay
Kumar and other A.S.Is. Second Investigating Officer Mirza

21
Maksood Alam Beg along with his team recorded the statement of
the informant as also inspected the place of occurrence in the light of
the information gathered from the informant. Second Investigating
Officer also recorded the statement of Rajvinesh Rajbansi @
Ramvinesh Rajbansi, Munni Rajbansi, Yaduni Rajbansi, Mukul
Rajbansi, Sikandar Chaudhary, Dudh Nath Chaudhary, Belwanti
Kumari, Sohrai Mahto, Laxman Rajbansi, Surendra Rajbansi,
Ramugrah Rajbansi, Yugal Ravidas, Subedar Ravidas, Baijnath
Prasad, Ram Vinay Prasad, Anil Kumar, Pappu Kumar, Kamaldeo
Ram, Kamakhya Narayan, Sahindra Paswan, Om Prakash Paswan,
Panchanand Paswan, Ramashray Ram on 15.12.1997. Second
Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg also recorded the
statement of Ramnuj Pandit, Dukhan Chaudhary, Bhagwan Ramani,
Bhutti Ram, Sidhnath Paswan and then instructed Inspector Ashok
Kumar Das and S.I. Deo Narayan Mahto, members of investigating
team to obtain post-mortem, injury report and submit the same along
with supplementary case diary. On 17, 18.12.1997, Second
Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg recorded the
statement of Accused No. 3 Ashok Singh, Accused No. 2 Surendra
Singh, Accused No. 5 Baleshwar Sharma, Accused No. 16 Kawal
Singh @ Ram Kewal Sharma, Accused No. 12 Nand Singh, Accused
No. 15 Chandeshwar Singh, Accused No. 8 Nawal Singh in jail. On

22
18.12.1997, Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg
further recorded the statement of Accused No. 21 Mithilesh Sharma,
Accused No. 20 Babloo Sharma, Accused No. 19 Ashok Sharma,
Bhushan Singh (died during trial), Accused No.1 Girja Singh,
Sudarshan Sharma (died during trial), Accused No. 26 Surendra
Sharma, Accused No. 18 Shiv Mohan Sharma, Awadhesh Singh,
Accused No. 7 Bijendra Singh, Accused No. 11 Shatrughan Singh,
Accused No. 10 Nandu Singh and non-FIR accused Rabindra Kumar
Singh, Ram Ekbal Sharma, Sunil Kumar, Navin Kumar, Awani
Bhushan in jail. Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam
Beg also recorded the statement of Chaukidar Baleshwar Singh,
Ramdhari Singh, Ram Chandra Chamar, Awadhesh Chamar, Mangal
Chamar, Jawahar Mushar, Gopichand Singh, Keshlal Chaudhary,
Siyaram Chaudhary, Dashrath Sharma, Surendra Prasad, Ayodhya,
Naresh Kahar, Hira Sah, Hridya Sah, Sipahi Ram, Hari Narayan
Ram, Rajan Ram, Amir Chand Ram, Shiv Shankar Ravidas,
Gupteshwar Kahar, Chaukidar Purnmashi Ram, Raj Kumar Ram,
Nathu Tanti, Kashi Sah, Ramnath Ram, Jai Pati Paswan, Dashrath
Ram and Onkar Tiwari. Having recorded the statement of the
aforesaid witnesses, Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood
Alam Beg obtained police remand of Accused No.3 Ashok Singh and
accused Sudarshan Sharma who died during trial. Accused No. 14

23
Dharichan Singh surrendered in the court on 23.12.1997. He further
recorded the statement of Bhagera Kanu, Banshidhar Sharma and
Jawahar Mushar. Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam
Beg also recorded the statement of injured Bimlesh Kumar. Second
Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg further instructed
Inspector Indu Bhushan Prasad, a member of his investigating team
to record statement of the injured getting treatment in PMCH who
having recorded the statement of Mahurati Devi, Mahesh Rajbansi
and Manoj Rajbansi, submitted supplementary case diary containing
their statement. Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam
Beg also obtained the criminal antecedent of members of Ranvir
Sena, namely, Jata Singh, Vijay Singh, Suresh Rai, Bhola Rai, Bipin
Bihari Rai, Goga @ Shiv Shankar Rai, Pramod Singh, Santu Singh,
Chandra Keshwar Rai, Arvind Kumar Singh, Ramesh Singh, Srinivas
Pandey, Sidhnath Rai being accused in different cases of Sahar,
Sandesh, Udwant Nagar, P.S. Ara Town, Ara Nawada P.S. Accused
Kamlesh Bhatt being accused in Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 14/79,
20/97, 40/93, 84/84, 113/84, 11/85, 71/87, 8/88, 75/90, 7/85, 91/93,
69/97, Kamakhya Singh being accused in Charpokhari P.S. Case No.
69/97, Brahmeshwar Singh Mukhia being accused in Sandesh P.S.
Case No. 35/95, 45/95, Sahar P.S. Case No. 37/95, Sandesh P.S.
Case No. 50/95, Udwant Town P.S. Case No. 154/95, Sahar P.S.

24
Case No. 49/96, 67/96, 68/96, 69/96, Charpokhari P.S. Case No.
61/96, Sahar P.S. Case No. 98/96, 153/96, Sandesh P.S. Case No.
119/96, Pawana P.S. Case No. 93/97, Panjore P.S. Case No. 35/97,
Vishwanath Rai being accused in Pawana P.S. Case No. 123/95,
119/96, Hridaya Singh being accused in Sandesh P.S. Case No.
43/97, Ajay Singh being accused in Sandesh P.S. Case No. 37/97.
5. Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam
Beg having collected post-mortem report, recorded the statement of
witnesses, including eye-witnesses, submitted charge sheet No. 24
dated 27.2.1998 against 48 accused persons in custody citing 152
witnesses for supporting the prosecution case. He further submitted
supplementary charge sheet No. 103 dated 9.7.1998 against 2
accused persons. Out of the 50 accused sent up for trial, trial of one
accused was separated as he was adjudged juvenile. The case was
committed to the court of sessions under order dated 6.1.1999 by
C.J.M., Jehanabad whereafter the same was numbered as Sessions
Trial No. 2 of 1999 and remained pending in the court of 1
st

Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad until the same was transferred
to the court of 2
nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in compliance of
the instructions of the High Court contained in letter No. XVIII-1-99
dated 7.10.1999, which fact would appear from order dated
13.12.1999 passed by 2
nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Patna at page

25
38 of Volume No. I of the paper book. Even after transfer of the
aforesaid sessions trial to Patna Civil Court, trial of the accused
persons of the present case did not begin until the High Court issued
fresh instructions dated 29.11.2008 and 4.12.2008 directing transfer
of the trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Patna for
expeditious disposal of the trial on day to day basis, which fact
would appear from order dated 5.12.2008 at page 251 of Volume No.
I of the paper book. After receipt of the record in the court of
Additional District & Sessions Judge-III, Patna, charge was framed
under order dated 23.12.2008, 28.1.2009 against 44, 2 accused
persons respectively.
6. In support of the charge, prosecution examined 91
witnesses in court. Out of 91, 17 witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 12, 14, 16
to 18, 41 are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.Ws. 10, 11, 17,
18 are those who suffered injury on their person. Out of 91 witnesses
examined in court, 38 witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 13, 27, 33 to 40, 42 to 46,
48, 50 to 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 65 to 67, 71 to 73, 75, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84
have been declared hostile. 15 of the prosecution witnesses, namely,
P.Ws. 47, 49, 56, 59, 61, 63, 64, 68, 69, 70, 74, 76, 79, 80 and 83
have been tendered. Amongst the remaining prosecution witnesses, 8
are Doctors i.e. P.Ws. 19 to 23, 86, 89, 90. P.Ws. 19 to 23 conducted
post-mortem of the 58 deceased. P.Ws. 86, 89 and 90 examined the

26
injured. There are 4 police officers and one Chawkidar examined in
support of the charge i.e. P.Ws. 85, 87, 88, 91 and 15. P.Ws. 85, 91
are the two Investigating Officers. P.W. 87 is a witness who prepared
the inquest report, Ext. 18 series. P.W. 88 is the officer-in-charge of
Mehandia P.S. who scribed the fardbeyan. P.Ws. 24 to 26, 28 to 32
are formal witnesses, as they are witnesses of inquest report, seizure
list etc.
7. It is advantageous to first consider the evidence of
eye, injured witnesses including informant in seriatim. P.W. 1
Belwanti Devi has supported the occurrence. She states in paragraph
1 of her examination-in-chief that 11 years earlier on the night of
occurrence at about 10.30 P.M., she heard sound of gun fire, 5-7
miscreants armed with rifle, pistol and torch entered her house by
forcibly breaking open the door. She along with her younger brother,
Om Nath Chaudhary concealed herself beneath the bed. The
miscreants shot at her causing death of her younger brother. The
miscreants also killed her father, Mahendra Chaudhary, mother
Rajmadali Devi and elder brother Nanhak Chaudhary. Amongst the
miscreants, P.W.1 identified Accused No. 12, Nand Singh, Accused
No. 15 Chandeshwar Singh, Accused No. 8 Nawal Singh, Accused
No. 6 Dwarika Singh. Amongst those identified during occurrence,
P.W.1 identified Accused No. 12 Nand Singh and Accused No. 8

27
Nawal Singh in court also as they were present during examination
of P.W.-1 in court. As regards other miscreants, she stated that
because of passage of time, she may not be in a position to identify
them. Witness further claimed that firing continued for one hour and
the miscreants while making good their escape, raised slogan
proclaiming victory of Ranvir Baba.
8. P.W.2 Sikandar Chaudhary has supported the
occurrence by stating in paragraph 1 of his examination-in-chief that
11 years earlier on 1.12.1997 at about 10 P.M. while he along with
his father Garib Chand Chaudhary, mother Sanichari Devi, wife Sona
Devi, daughters Anita Kumari, Sunita Kumari, younger brother
Dudhnath was sleeping in his house, heard sound of gun firing,
miscreants began to break open his entrance door, before the door
could be broken, he climbed the balcony of the room in which he
stores cow dung cake and also ties his cow, oxen and buffalo with
tether to a peg. Having broken the door, miscreants came inside his
house and resorted to firing which continued for one and half hours.
The witness further states that the miscreants by flashing torch were
looking for him and others. In the torch light flashed by the
miscreants, the witness claimed to have identified during the
occurrence Birendra Singh, Accused No. 2 Surendra Singh and
Anjani Singh. In court witness identified only Birendra Singh and

28
claimed to identify others. Birendra Singh later absconded and trial
of Anjani Singh was separated as he was found to be juvenile. In
paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief, the witness states that he
came down from the balcony after half an hour and then saw the
dead body of his parents in one room and the dead body of his wife
and two daughters in another room. His brother Dudhnath
Chaudhary, P.W.4 had concealed himself in an earthen storage.
9. P.W.3 Laxaman Rajabansi has supported the
occurrence by stating that about 11 years earlier at about 10 P.M.
while he was in his house, heard sound of gun fire. The miscreants
were trying to break open his door, witness came out of his house,
concealed himself by going to the other side of the boundary wall, as
his boundary wall and the boundary wall of his brother Ugrah
Rajbansi, P.W.16 is of the same height facing west, east respectively
and there were creepers of bean on the boundary wall of his brother.
Having broken the door of his house, 20-25 miscreants armed with
rifle, gun and torch entered his house. Birendra Singh killed his wife
Jaimurat Devi, Accused No. 2 Surendra Singh killed his daughter-in-
law Malti Devi by resorting to indiscriminate firing. P.W.5 Surendra
Rajbansi, son of P.W.3 managed to escape by scaling the boundary
wall. Amongst the miscreants, witness claimed to have identified
Birendra Singh, Accused No. 2 Surendra Singh, Accused No. 4

29
Gopal Singh, Accused No.9, Baliram Singh, Anjani Singh (Juvenile),
Accused No. 11, Shatrughan Singh (after much thought), all of
village Bathe during the occurrence. In court witness identified
Accused No. 9 Baliram Singh, Anjani Singh (Juvenile), Accused
No.2 Surendra Singh, Accused No.1 Girja Singh and Accused No.7
Bijendra Singh as also claimed that others whom he has claimed to
have identified during the occurrence can identify them if produced
in court. In paragraph 5 of his examination-in-chief, the witness
claimed that miscreants remained in his house for 20-25 minutes. He
also claimed that after the miscreants came out of his house, firing,
weeping, wailing continued for one hour. According to this witness
also the miscreants while departing claimed victory in the name of
Ranvir Baba.
10. P.W.4 Dudh Nath Chaudhary has also supported the
occurrence by stating that 11 years earlier on 1.12.1997 in the night
at about 10.30, he was at his house and heard loud cry, sound of
firing and then went to the house of his sister-in-law where his sister-
in-law Sona Devi and two nieces, Savita Kumari, Anita Kumari were
there. The miscreants broke open the door and entered into the house.
P.W.4, however, concealed himself in the room of his sister-in-law in
the earthen storage and saw from the exit point of the earthen storage
that miscreants were firing shots on the person of his sister-in-law

30
and both the nieces. The miscreants also searched for P.W.4, his
brother P.W.2 Sikandar in the torchlight flashed by them for 10-12
minutes. P.W.4 further claimed in his evidence that in the torchlight
flashed by the miscreants, he identified six of the miscreants, namely,
Phanish Singh, Accused No. 3 Ashok Singh, Accused No. 7 Bijendra
Singh, Accused No. 1 Girja Singh, Accused No. 17 Dharma Singh of
village Kamta, Accused No. 23 Ravindra Singh of village Jalwaiya.
In court P.W.4 identified Accused No. 17 Dharma Singh, Accused
No.1 Girja Singh and Accused No. 7 Bijendra Singh and further
claimed that he can identify the others if produced in court. In
paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief, the witness claimed that
after the miscreants came out of his house, firing continued for 1 or 1
hours, thereafter whistle was sounded thrice in the orchard and
miscreants went away raising slogan proclaiming victory of Ranvir
Baba. After the miscreants left the village, P.W.4 came out of the
earthen storage, his brother Sikandar came down from the balcony
and both the brothers began to cry having seen the dead body of their
sister-in-law. In the other room, his parents were also found dead.
11. P.W. 5 Surendra Rajbansi has also supported the
occurrence by stating that 11 years earlier at about 10 P.M. on
1.12.1997, the occurrence had taken place as on that day M/s
Bijendra Thakur, Kisan Rajbansi and Raj Kumar of village Kamta

31
had come to meet him, visitors were served with dinner at about 9
P.M. in the covered verandah (Dalan) of Ramashray Paswan and
thereafter P.W. 5 made them sleep and returned to his house then saw
in the north ample light as also heard sound of firing. The door of his
house was also attacked by firing shot whereafter the witness went
towards the wall in the eastern side of his courtyard and concealed
himself in the creepers. 20-22 miscreants were continuously firing as
there was enough light killing his mother, Jaimurti Devi, sister
Prabha Devi and wife Manti Devi. Amongst the miscreants, P.W. 5
first claimed that he identified three of them, but thereafter stated that
he identified four miscreants, namely, Accused No.6 Dwarika Singh,
Accused No. 8 Nawal Singh, Accused No. 16 Kewal Singh and
Awadhesh of village Bathe. In court P.W. 5 identified Accused No. 8
Nawal Singh and further stated that he can identify others, if made
available. He also claimed that the miscreants were looking for him
inside his house by flashing light for 15-20 minutes, but as he was
not found, they came out of his house firing shots. The witness also
claimed that the miscreants after the occurrence sounded whistle 3/ 4
times and raised slogan proclaiming victory in the name of Ranvir
Sena. According to the witness firing continued in the village for
about one hour. After departure of the miscreants, the witness saw
that his mother, sister and wife have been killed. In paragraph 3 of

32
his examination-in-chief, P.W. 5 claimed that there was dispute about
the quantum of wage given to the witness and others, as according to
the witness, they were being given 1 Kg of food grain as wage and
the demand was for 3 Kg. He also claimed that the accused persons
wanted to dominate the members of the prosecution party as they
were scheduled caste.
12. P.W. 6 Mutur Rajbansi has also supported the
occurrence by stating that 11 years earlier at about 10 P.M., the
witness along with his family members was sleeping in his house,
heard indiscriminate shots being fired out side in the orchard and
then opened the door and came to the courtyard and began to assess
the direction in which firing was being made. In the meantime,
miscreants began to break open the northern door of his house and
then P.W. 6 asked his children to conceal themselves in a room by
locking the same from inside. P.W. 6, however, climbed the thatched
roof and concealed himself in the gourd creepers by sitting over ridge
pole. 15-18 miscreants armed with gun, rifle and holding three-cell
torch broke open the door of his house and entered the room in which
his family members had concealed themselves whereafter P.W. 6
heard sound of indiscriminate firing. Amongst the miscreants, P.W. 6
identified, Accused No. 2 Surendra Singh, Accused No.1 Girja
Singh, Accused No. 5 Baleshwar Singh of village Bathe. According

33
to the witness, the miscreants remained in his house for 10-15
minutes, the firing in the village continued for 1-2 hours. The witness
heard indiscriminate firing sound from the thatched roof where he
had concealed himself. The witness also heard whistle sound and
slogan proclaiming victory in the name of Ranvir Baba. In paragraph
3 of his examination-in-chief, the witness confirmed that after he
came down from the thatched roof, he saw the dead bodies of 6 of his
family members i.e. of his wife, Dhankumari Devi, daughter Saroja
Kumari and son Vishwanath Kumar who suffered gun shot injury on
chest, stomach and forehead and were bleeding. In the other room of
the house, witness saw the dead body of his mother, Rajmania Devi,
sister-in-law Ful Kumari Devi and niece Chania Devi. Nephew
Mahesh Kumar suffered injury whereas niece Sona Kumari was
saved as she concealed herself behind the earthen storage.
13. P.W. 7 Subedar Ravidas also supported the
occurrence as he had stated in his examination-in-chief that about 11
years earlier, he was at his house, in the night at about 10 P.M. he
heard firing sound and being scared concealed himself in bean
creepers and then saw the miscreants armed with rifle flashing torch.
The miscreants killed his brother, Shiv Bachan, nephew Raj Kumar,
Jayant and sister-in-law Samundri Devi, mother Chhathia Devi.
Amongst the miscreants, P.W. 7 identified Accused No. 19 Ashok

34
Singh @ Sharma and Accused No. 3 another Ashok Singh (Rajput),
Accused No. 1, Girja Singh, Bhushan Singh, who died during trial. In
court, witness identified Accused No. 19 Ashok Singh and asserted
that he is resident of village Kamta and then claimed that others
whom he named but are not present can be identified by him if
produced in court. Accused No. 19 Ashok Singh, however, claimed
that his name is Ashok Sharma.
14. P.W. 8 Ram Vinesh Rajbansi has also supported the
occurrence as he stated in the examination-in-chief that on 1.12.1997
at about 10 P.M., he was at his house having heard firing sound came
out of his house in the lane then concealed himself in the dilapidated
house of Ramashray Paswan and saw 15-20 miscreants armed with
gun, rifle and holding torch breaking the door and forcibly entering
his house resorting to firing, killing his mother Etwaria Devi at the
spot, sister Mahurati Devi though suffered gun shot injury, but was
saved and taken in the morning to police station by her brother.
Amongst the miscreants, witness identified his co-villager Accused
No.3 Ashok Singh, Birendra Singh, Accused No.2 Surendra Singh,
Phanish Kumar Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Accused No. 4, Gopal
Singh, Accused No. 9 Baliram Singh, but none of them is present in
court. The witness further claimed that he can identify the
miscreants, if they are produced in court. The witness also claimed

35
that firing continued for about one hour. The miscreants 100-150 in
number sounded whistle proclaiming victory of Ranvir Sena went
towards Sone river. He also claimed that 53 persons were killed in
the village and 5 persons on the bank of river Sone.
15. P.W. 9 Yugal Ravidas has also supported the
occurrence by stating in his examination-in-chief that about 11 years
earlier in the night between 9 10 P.M., he was sleeping in his hut
and woke up hearing sound of indiscriminate firing coming from the
north. The miscreants came from the Sone river side, 20-25 of them
armed with rifle, torch entered into the house of his middle brother
Shiv Bachan Ravidas and continued to fire in his house for about 10
minutes, killed his brother Shiv Bachan Ravidas, his elder son Raj
Kumar, wife Samundri Devi, younger son Jayant Kumar and
thereafter left. Amongst the miscreants P.W.9 identified Accused
No.1 Girja Singh, Accused No. 15 Chandeshwar Singh, Accused No.
12 Nand Singh, Accused No. 3 Ashok Singh from his hut. He further
claimed in his examination-in-chief that his mother Chhathia Devi
was crying for mercy, but Accused No.3 Ashok Singh shot her dead
by firing from his rifle, brass empty cartridge whereof was lying on
the ground. The witness further claimed that firing continued south
of his house for one hour whereafter the miscreants assembled and
went toward north from near his hut. The witness also claimed in

36
paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief that earlier Accused No. 3
Ashok Singh and Birendra Singh had said that they are waiting for
opportune time and incident shall take place. The witness also
claimed in paragraph 4 of his examination-in-chief that he can
identify all the four accused persons named by him in court, but as
they are not present in court, he is not identifying them and had also
stated about the occurrence to the police.
16. P.W.10 Mahurati Devi has also supported the
occurrence and has stated in her examination-in-chief that 11 years
earlier at about 10 P.M., she having taken dinner was sleeping with
her mother, heard gun shot being fired both mother and daughter
woke and stood up. Meanwhile 10-15 miscreants broke open the
door, entered her house, abusively asked about the presence of her
brother, after knowing that he is not present Accused No. 1 Girja
Singh shot at her mother, Accused No. 9 Baliram Singh snatched her
chain and earring. While she was offering her another earring to the
miscreants, Accused No.8 Nawal Singh shot at her and she fell down.
Accused No.4 Gopal Singh, however, stated that one more shot be
fired, but another miscreant restrained such shot observing that she
has fallen down. After giving the aforesaid evidence, the witness
began to weep and stated that she could not identify any other person
amongst the miscreants. The miscreants identified by her are co-

37
villagers. The witness claimed that she was treated and operated
upon in P.M.C.H. The witness also claimed that all the miscreants
were holding torch and she identified the miscreants in the torchlight
flashed by them. The witness also claimed that her statement was
recorded after she was operated upon at Patna.
17. P.W.11 Bimlesh Kumar has also supported the
occurrence by stating in his examination-in-chief that about 11 years
earlier at about 10.30 P.M. while he was at his house along with his
father and other family members, namely, Kavesh Rajbansi, Kamlesh
Rajbansi, Kalawati and Meera Devi, heard sound of indiscriminate
firing and woke up. 15-20 miscreants broke open the door and
entered into his house armed with gun, pistol and holding torch.
Accused No. 1 Girja Singh shot at his father, Birendra Singh shot at
his brother Kavesh Rajbansi, Bhushan Singh shot at his brother
Kamlesh Rajbansi, his two sister-in-laws were also shot dead by the
miscreants, but he could not identify them. Accused No. 17 Dharma
Singh shot at the witness near his cheek, who is present in court and
the witness identified Dharma Singh in dock claiming that other
miscreants named by him can also be identified by him, if produced
in court. In paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief, the witness
claimed that Dharma Singh is of village Kamta, but the three other
miscreants named by him are his co-villagers. In paragraph 3, the

38
witness claimed that after his treatment when he returned from Patna,
his statement was taken by the police.
18. P.W. 12 Munni Rajbansi has also supported the
occurrence and has stated in his examination-in-chief that 11 years
earlier at about 10 P.M. he was at his house, all around the village
shots were being fired, he woke up. While the miscreants were firing
and attempting to break open the door of his house, he climbed the
thatched roof of his house and concealed himself in the gourd
creepers. After breaking the door, 15 miscreants entered his
courtyard. In the western, eastern side of the courtyard, there are 2, 1
room respectively. Daughter-in-law of the witness was in the south-
western room, door whereof was also broken by the miscreants who
also entered the room. The miscreants were holding torch and were
armed with gun and killed his daughter-in-law Domani Devi, wife
Rupkalia Devi, granddaughter Sunita Kumari, grandson Chhotelal,
daughter Sheela Kumari. Amongst the miscreants, witness identified
Birendra Singh, Phanish Singh, Accused No. 2 Surendra Singh of
village Bathe, Accused No. 17 Dharma Singh, Accused No. 19,
Ashok Singh, Accused No. 18 Shiv Mohan Singh, all of Kamta,
Accused No. 14 Dharichan Singh, Accused No. 11 Shatrughan
Singh, Accused No. 3 Ashok Singh all of village Bathe. The witness
further stated that five of his family members were killed and

39
grandson, Manoj Kumar was injured. In paragraph 2 of the
exainination-in-chief, the witness claimed that miscreants continued
to fire in his house for about 15 minutes and thereafter went towards
Sone river. He further claimed that all his deceased family members
were in one room. In paragraph 3 of the examination-in-chief, the
witness also claimed that occurrence was the result of wage dispute,
as they were claiming 4 ser of grain, but they were paying 2 ser. He
also clamed in the same paragraph that prior to the occurrence
nothing had happened. In paragraph 4 of the examination-in-chief,
the witness claimed that the miscreants identified by him during
occurrence are not present in court today, but he can identify them if
they are produced in court.
19. P.W.14 Soharai Mahto has also supported the
occurrence by stating in his examination-in-chief that 10-11 years
earlier in the night between 9-10 P.M. he having taken his dinner had
gone to Dalan (verandah covered from three sides) of Bhikhari
Thakur for sleeping, heard sound of gun firing and then came
running towards his house. While he was approaching the lane, saw
that the miscreants have entered his house and then he concealed
himself out side the house in the lane. The firing continued for about
1 - 1 hours. His daughter, Taregni requested the miscreants not to
kill his brother, but the miscreants shot dead his daughter, Taregni,

40
daughter-in-law Basanti, son Rampolice. Amongst the miscreants,
witness claimed that he identified Accused No. 13 Pramod, Accused
No. 16 Ram Kawal, Accused No. 10 Nandu and Accused No. 5
Baleshwar Singh. The witness also claimed that he can identify the
miscreants named by him in court, if produced in court. Amongst the
accused persons present in court, witness identified one of the
accused as Venkatesh, but the accused identified by the witness as
Venkatesh asserted that he is Navin Kumar then the witness claimed
that if other miscreants would have been present in court then he
could have identified them. The witness also claimed that he was
examined by the police.
20. P.W.16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansi has also supported the
occurrence by asserting in examination-in-chief that about 11 years
earlier on 1.12.1997 at about 10-10.30 in the night he was sleeping at
his house, heard two shots being fired and then woke up. To take
stock of the situation, he climbed the brick wall of his house, saw
blinking light in the orchard where 20-25 miscreants were standing,
attempting to break open the door of the house of his brother Laxman
Rajbansi which was towards north. While the miscreants were trying
to break open the door of the house of his brother, which was
towards north, his brother Laxman and nephew Surendra came to his
courtyard where the witness himself was standing after scaling the

41
wall. While the miscreants broke open the door, the witness climbed
the wall and went to the roof and then concealed himself in gourd
creepers and saw the incident from there. 20-25 miscreants holding
torch were armed with gun, pistol and other weapons like fasuli, axe.
The witness further claimed in paragraph 2 of his examination-in-
chief that Dharma Singh of village Kamta, commander of Ranvir
Sena exhorted the miscreants that the scheduled castes have become
assertive whereafter Birendra Singh, Accused No. 2 Surendra Singh,
Anjani Singh, Accused No. 17 Dharma Singh, Accused No. 21
Mithilesh Singh, Accused No. 20 Babloo Singh forcibly broke open
the door and entered the house and resorted to firing. In the courtyard
Fanish Singh, Accused No. 6 Dwarika Singh, Accused No. 4 Gopal
Singh, Awadhesh Singh (presently dead), Accused No. 9, Baliram
Singh, Accused No. 13 Pramod Singh, Accused No. 8 Nawal
Sharma, Bhushan Sharma (presently dead), Accused No. 7 Bijrendra
Singh, Accused No.1 Girja Singh, Accused No. 5 Baleshwar Singh,
Accused No.10 Nandu Singh all of village Bathe, Accused No. 22
Navin Sharma, Accused No. 24 Sunil Sharma of village Chanda,
Accused No. 18 Shiv Mohan Sharma, Accused No. 17 Dharma
Singh, Accused No. 21 Mithilesh Sharma, Accused No. 20 Babloo
Sharma of village Kamta remained standing in the courtyard. All the
miscreants were holding torch and big, small deadly weapon as also

42
pahsul, fasuli and axe. The witness further claimed that aforesaid
miscreants killed his sister-in-law Jaimurat Devi, daughter-in-law
Manti Devi, niece Prabha Kumari on the bed itself. In paragraph 4 of
his examination-in-chief, the witness claimed that miscreants 100-
150 in number collected after whistle sound was heard thrice and
went toward river Sone in the north proclaiming victory in the name
of Ranvir Baba. After crossing the river Sone, some of the miscreants
went towards Bhojpur and also killed 5 Chaudhary fishermen slitting
their neck. In paragraph 6 of his examination-in-chief, the witness
claimed that he can identify all the miscreants whom he has named in
paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief. Out of the miscreants named
by the witness, Navin Sharma was present in court and was identified
by the witness, for other miscreants, the witness claimed that he can
identify them, if produced in court. In paragraph 7, the witness
accepted that his statement was recorded by the police after 10 days
of the occurrence on 12.12.1997.
21. P.W.17 Mahesh Rajbansi has also supported the
occurrence as he has stated in his examination-in-chief that he also
suffered gun shot injury in his right leg in the occurrence and his
mother, elder sister, grandmother, aunt, cousin sister, brother were
killed in the same occurrence. The witness, however, did not identify
any of the miscreants as he was quite young.

43
22. P.W.18 Manoj Kumar has also supported the
occurrence by stating in his examination-in-chief that 11 years earlier
occurrence had taken place in his village in which he also suffered
gun shot injury and in the same occurrence his mother, sister,
brother, aunt, grandmother were killed.
23. P.W.41 Binod Paswan, the informant has also
supported the occurrence by stating in his examination-in-chief that
on 1.12.1997 at about 10.30 P.M. he was sleeping in his house along
with his father Late Ram Chela Paswan. In the other room, his
mother Rajrani Devi, brother Rohan Paswan, Amar Paswan, Kunwar
Paswan, Anuj Paswan and sisters Rita Devi and Kabutari Kumari
were sleeping. Father of the informant having heard sound of gun
shot awoke the informant and his mother. The miscreants were
attempting to break open the door of his house. Father of the
informant asked the informant and other family members to go into
one room in which there is door and to conceal themselves. While
the informant and others went into the other room and tried to close
the door, miscreants broke open the door and entered into the
courtyard and then broke open the door of the room in which
informant and others had concealed themselves. Mother of the
informant with folded hands pleaded before the miscreants and asked
about the mistake they have committed, the miscreants, however,

44
armed with rifle, gun and holding torch shot her dead. The informant
managed to conceal himself in the space between the earthen storage.
The miscreants shot at his mother, both sisters and four brothers.
They died at the spot. The informant amongst the miscreants
identified Anjani Singh, Accused No. 6 Dwarika Singh, Accused No.
13 Pramod Singh, Accused No. 4 Gopal Singh, Accused No. 9
Baliram Singh, Accused No. 3 Ashok Singh, Phanish Singh,
Birendra Singh, Accused No.2 Surendra Singh as the one who
entered the room in which informant and his other family members
concealed themselves and shot in the torchlight flashed by the
miscreants as also by their voice. In paragraph 4 of his examination-
in-chief, the informant claimed that after the miscreants left his
hosue, he climbed the roof of the house of his uncle Rooplal Paswan
and firing continued in the village for about 1 - 1 hours. In
paragraph 5, the informant claimed that in the south, east of his house
the miscreants continued to fire, whistle was blown once or twice
then miscreants began to assemble in the vacant land by the side of
the house of his uncle where 150-200 miscreants finally assembled
armed with iron weapon like sickle. In the torchlight flashed by the
miscreants as also by their voice, informant could identify Accused
No. 14 Dharichan Singh, Accused No. 16 Kawal Singh, Accused No.
11 Shatrughan Singh, Accused No. 12 Nand Singh, Accused No. 10

45
Nandu Singh, Accused No. 5 Baleshwar Singh, Accused No.1 Girja
Singh, Bhukhan Singh, Accused No. 7 Bijendra Singh of village
Bathe, Accused No. 21 Mithilesh Singh, Accused No. 20, Babloo
Singh, Accused No. 26 Surendra Singh, Accused No. 18 Shiv Mohan
Singh, Sudarshan Singh of village Kamta. In paragraph 6, the
informant further claimed that prior to the occurrence also
Brahmeshwar Singh of village Kopila, Pramod Singh of village
Ekwari, Krishna Sardar of village Pali used to hold meeting in the
village, but he was not aware that they were coming to the village for
organizing this occurrence. The meeting used to be held at the big
Dalan (verandah covered from three sides) in the house of co-villager
Accused No.2 Surendra Singh. In the same paragraph, the informant
claimed that he can identify those whom he has named in the
paragraphs above and further claimed that he can also identify
Brahmeshwar Singh and Krishna Sardar, but he cannot recognize
Pramod Singh of village Ekwari. In paragraph 7, the informant
asserted that the miscreants organized, committed the present
occurrence to establish their supremacy. He also claimed in the same
paragraph that they were provided 3-4 ser of paddy as wage but the
demand was for giving them rice as wage. He further claimed in
paragraph 8 that 53 persons were shot in the village and neck of 5
persons slit on the bank of Sone river.

46
24. Having considered the evidence of eye-witnesses,
including injured and informant, I proceed to consider the evidence
of police officers, including village Chawkidar in seriatim.
25. P.W.15 Ramanand Yadav is Chawkidar, bearing
No. 5/1 of village Laxamanpur Bathe. He has stated in paragraph 2 of
his examination-in-chief that in December 1997 he was assigned
duty at Mehandia P.S. and came to learn about the occurrence at
about 6 A.M. and, accordingly, passed on the information to P.W.88,
the officer-in-charge, who asked him to quickly get the force ready
for moving to the place of occurrence. He also accompanied the
officer-in-charge and reached the place of occurrence - village in
between 7-8 AM whereafter the officer-in-charge visited the houses
in which occurrence (killing) had taken place and saw the 58 dead
bodies. In paragraph 3, P.W.15 has stated that he knows co-villager
Suryaman Upadhyay whose land was declared ceiling surplus by
Sangram Samiti with direction to Suryaman Upadhyay to distribute
the same amongst the poor people which is already under occupation
of members of fishermen, Kahar and Barbar community. Daughters
of Suryaman Upadhyay began to sell his lands, which was not
objected to by Sri Upadhyay. Daughters of Suryaman Upadhyay sold
the land to the members of Bhumihar, Mahto and Yadav caste. On
the vended land, there was standing crop. Vendee of the land when

47
proceeded to harvest the crop, members of Sangram Samiti
prohibited the vendee from harvesting the crop and themselves
harvested the crop whereafter vendee stopped cultivation and left the
land vacant.
26. P.W.85 Shri Dhar Mandal is the first Investigating
Officer of the case, who took charge of the investigation of the case
on oral instruction of the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad on
2.12.1997 at about 10 A.M. Having taken charge of the investigation,
Shri Dhar Mandal directed the officer-in-charge, Mehandia P.S. and
other police officers present at the place of occurrence to prepare the
inquest report of the dead bodies available at the place of occurrence
and to prepare seizure list of the incriminating materials found at the
place of occurrence. He also recorded the further statement of the
informant in paragraph 4 of the case diary in which informant
supported the prosecution case as set out in his fardbeyan and further
stated that during the night between 1 /2.12.1997, he along with his
family members after taking dinner was sleeping, woke up between
9.30 -10.30 P.M. hearing the sound of gun firing and while he was
coming out of his room, 10-15 miscreants armed with rifle etc., broke
open the main entrance door of his house and entered his courtyard.
Having seen the miscreants entering his house, informant concealed
himself behind the earthen storage in the western room situate south

48
of the courtyard facing north. Miscreants entered eastern room facing
north and resorted to indiscriminate firing. Mother, sister and bother
of the informant began to weep, cry. Miscreants after resorting to
firing in the eastern room also came to the western room, but they
having not found anyone, left the room. After the miscreants left the
house of the informant, informant in a fearful condition went to the
eastern room facing north and saw that his mother Rajrani Devi,
sisters, Rita Devi, Kabutari Devi, brother Amar Paswan, Kunwar
Paswan, Anuj Paswan and Rohan Paswan have suffered firearm
injury, are restless and died soon thereafter. In fearful condition,
informant through western exit went to the roof of the house of his
uncle Rooplal Paswan. Miscreants continued to fire in the house of
other co-villagers for about half an hour. Informant further disclosed
in his further statement that from the roof of his uncle, he saw 150-
200 miscreants in the torchlight flashed by them as by lighting torch
they were trying to identify the houses. Informant further stated in his
further statement that whistle sound was also heard whereafter
miscreants assembled in the vacant land near the house of Rooplal
Paswan and raised slogan proclaiming victory of Ranvir Sena and
then went towards Sone river in the north. In the further statement
also informant stated that during the occurrence as also after the
occurrence while the miscreants assembled in the vacant land, he

49
identified 19 miscreants of village Laxmanpur Bathe and 7
miscreants of village Kamta named in the fardbeyan in the torch light
flashed by the miscreants themselves. In the further statement,
informant also claimed that besides the miscreants named in the
fardbeyan and the further statement, other miscreants were also seen
and identified by the informant during the night of occurrence, but
not named in the fardbeyan and further statement as their name is not
known to him can also be identified by him, if produced. After
recording further statement of the informant, first Investigating
Officer prepared O.D. slip of the injured Mahesh Rajbansi, Bimlesh
Rajbansi, Ramnuj Rajbansi, Mahurati Devi and sent them for
treatment in the Govt. hospital, Arwal. Considering the 58 number of
dead bodies, Investigating Officer requested the District Magistrate,
Jehanabad to make available team of doctors for performing the task
of post-mortem on the person of the deceased in the village itself. On
2.12.1997 at about 11 AM first Investigating Officer inspected the
place of occurrence i.e. (1) House of the informant, P.W.41, (2)
house of deceased Sohan Rajbansi, (3) Dalan of Ramashray Paswan,
(4) house of deceased Etwaria Devi, (5) house of Munni Rajbansi,
(6) house of Yaduni Rajbansi, (7) house of Garib Chand Chaudhary,
(8) house of Mahendra Chaudhary, son of Garib Chand Chaudhary,
(9) house of Mahendra Chaudhary, son of Moti Chaudhary, (10)

50
house of deceased Chunni Chaudhary, (11) house of Rampolice
Mahto, (12) house of Surendra Rajbansi, (13) house of Shiv Bachan
Ram, (14) southern bank of river Sone. At the place of occurrence
nos. 1 to 13 Investigating Officer found dead bodies of inmates, the
evidence of firing, empties, including proof of breaking open the
entrance door. At place of occurrence no. 14, southern bank of river
Sone, Investigating Officer found foot-prints of 100-150 persons,
dead bodies of Chanarik Chaudhary, his two sons Gorakh Chaudhary
and Shiv Kailash Chaudhary with further sign of dragging the dead
bodies till the river. On the northern bank of river Sone, he further
found two dead bodies of Naresh Chaudhary and Ram Niwas
Chaudhary both sons of Mahesh Chaudhary near a hut where not
only copious blood was found on the bank, but also a boat anchored
smeared with blood. On the same day at about 4.05 P.M.,
Investigating Officer learnt through wireless message that on the
basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, present case has been
registered. After inspecting the place of occurrence, including both
the banks of river Sone, Investigaing Officer Shri Dhar Mandal
spoke to Officer-in-charge, Sahar P.S. at 4.15 P.M. Statement of Ram
Chela Paswan, father of the informant was also recorded on
2.12.1997 at about 4.30 P.M., who supported the occurrence but did
not claim to have identified any of the miscreants, rather, named the

51
miscreants on the basis of the information derived from his son.
Prosecution for the reasons best known to it has not produced Ram
Chela Paswan for his examination in court. On the same day at about
5 P.M., Investigating Officer received the inquest report, seizure list
of the deceased, seized items from the place of occurrence along with
supplementary case diary from Akhilendra Kumar Singh, officer-in-
charge of Mehandia P.S. and directed for safe custody of the blood
stained earth, empty cartridges in the Malkhana of the P.S.
Investigating Officer besides recording the further statement of the
informant, statement of his father, also recorded the statement of
Munni Devi wife of Kaulu Rajbansi, Raj Ganesh Rajbansi son of
Laxman Rajbansi, Munni Rajbansi son of Pappan Rajbansi and
Yaduni Rajbansi son of Deo Sharan Rajbansi on 2.12.1997 itself at
about 6.00 P.M., but none of the aforesaid witnesses have been
examined in court. Having conducted the preliminary investigation,
Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal took steps to arrest the
fardbeyan named accused persons of village Bathe at 9 P.M., but
they were found absconding. On 03.12.1997, Shri Dhar Mandal took
steps for the arrest of fardbeyan named accused, resident of village
Kamta, but they were also found absconding. On 03.12.1997 at about
8 AM, Shri Dhar Mandal recorded the statement of Mutur Rajbansi
son of Yaduni Rajbansi, Dudhnath Chaudhary, Sikandar Chaudhary

52
both sons of Garib Chand Chaudhary and on the same day at 5.25
P.M. arrested Accused No. 3 Ashok Singh as also seized a double
barrel gun from the house of Accused no. 4 Gopal Singh and
forwarded the arrested accused as also seized double barrel gun to
the P.S. at about 6.15 P.M. for being kept in the Hazat, Malkhana of
the P.S. Having forwarded the arrested accused and the gun to the
P.S., Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal examined three
witnesses, who are signatory to the inquest report, Dharmendra
Yadav, Kamaldeo Ram, Baijnath Prasad in the evening at 6.30 P.M.
on 03.12.1997 itself as they are witnesses to the inquest report of the
deceased. On 03.12.1997 at about 8.30 P.M., Investigating Officer
Shri Dhar Mandal proceeded to conduct raid and met officer-
incharge, Sahar P.S. During raid, all the fardbeyan named accused
persons of village Bathe, except accused no. 3 Ashok Singh, were
found absconding. Investigating Officer, however, instructed officer-
incharge, Mehandia P.S. to produce the arrested accused Ashok
Singh for his judicial remand. On 04.12.1997 at about 3.10 P.M.,
Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Belwanti Kumari,
Sohrai Mahto and Anil Kumar and thereafter arrested Accused No.
23 Ravindra Kumar Singh and Awadhesh Singh with direction to
produce the arrested accused for judicial remand on 05.12.1997 at
6.45 P.M. as also issued instruction for obtaining warrant, attachment

53
warrant against the absconding accused. On 05.12.1997 at about 9
AM first Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal recorded the
statement of Laxman Rajbansi, Om Prakash Paswan, Surendra
Rajbansi. On 06.12.1997, Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal
raided the school in village Kamta wherefrom arrested Accused No.
2 Surendra Singh and Accused No. 5 Baleshwar Sharma as also
forwarded them for obtaining their judicial remand. On the same day,
Investigating Officer obtained orders for execution of attachment
warrant in presence of Magistrate. On 06.12.1997, Investigating
Officer also examined Pancham and Baidyanath Prasad. On
07.12.1997 at about 12.45 AM Investigating Officer Shri Dhar
Mandal proceeded to conduct raid for the arrest of absconding
accused and in village Chanda arrested Accused No. 27 Awani
Bhushan Kumar, Accused No. 22 Navin Kumar, Accused No. 24
Sunil Kumar, Accused No. 26 Surendra Sharma and Accused No. 18
Shiv Mohan Singh as also forwarded them for their judicial remand.
Out of the five arrested accused from village Chanda, Surendra
Sharma and Shiv Mohan Singh are resident of village Kamta. On
07.12.1997, Investigating Officer also received supplementary case
diary containing seizure list. Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal
recorded the statement of Yugal Ravidas and Subedar Ravidas on
08.12.1997. DIG, CID, Patna under memo no. 3829/C dated

54
09.12.1997, wireless message No. 3830 dated 09.12.1997 instructed
Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal to hand over investigation of
Mehandia P.S. Case No. 126 of 1997 to Sri Mirza Maksood Alam
Beg, Dy.S.P., CID, Patna who took over the investigation on
10.12.1997, but before handing over the investigation to Mirza
Maksood Alam Beg, Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal
recorded the statement of Krishna Chaudhary and Rama Chaudhary
as also obtained surrender slip of six fardbeyan named accused.
27. P.W.87 Azahar Husain is a police officer who was
posted in Arwal P.S. on 2.12.1997 and had reached the place of
occurrence of the present case on 2.12.1997 between 8-9 A.M. along
with officer-in-charge and Dy.S.P. Shri Dhar Mandal and under
orders from Shri Dhar Mandal, he began to prepare the inquest report
by opening supplementary case diary of Devesh Rajbansi, Johar
Rajbansi, Kamlesh Rajbansi, Kalawati Devi, Malti Devi, Mahendra
Chaudhary, Dhanrajia Devi, Om Nath Chaudhary, Nanhak
Chaudhary, Etwaro Devi, Bijendra Thakur by carbon process, which
was marked as Exts. 18 18/10. Having prepared the inquest report,
P.W.87 also recorded the statement of Anil Kumar, Pappu Kumar
and submitted the same along with supplementary case diary to the
Investigating Officer Dy.S.P. Shri Dhar Mandal.
28. P.W. 88 Akhilendra Kumar Singh is also a police

55
officer, who was posted as officer-in-charge of Mehandia P.S. on
2.12.1997. In the morning, P.W.88 heard the rumour that extremists
have killed most of the villagers of Bathe village. Information about
the rumour was given to the superior police officers by P.W.88 and
thereafter with the available officers, constables as also armed force,
P.W.88 proceeded for village Bathe. In paragraph 2, P.W.88 states
that fardbeyan of P.W.41 was scribed by him on 2.12.1997 at 9.30
A.M. as also proved by him as Ext.19. The forwarding over the
fardbeyan is also under the signature of P.W.88 and marked as
Ext.20. On the instruction of P.W.88, S.I. Abhay Kumar Singh drew
formal FIR. P.W. 88 also identified the signature and writing of
Abhay Kumar Singh over the formal FIR, which was marked as Ext.
21. At the time of recording of the fardbeyan, Superintendent of
Police, Jehanabad, Aurangabad and officer-in-charge of the adjoining
P.S. along with armed force as also Dy.S.P. Arwal, Shri Dhar
Mandal was present at the time of recording of the fardbeyan. In the
occurrence, 58 persons were killed. On the instructions of the
Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad, investigation of the case was
taken up by Dy.S.P., Shri Dhar Mandal. On the fardbeyan, besides
the informant Binod Paswan, witness Shyam Bihari after having
heard/ learnt about the contents, put his signature. Informant put his
signature on the fardbeyan in presence of the witness Shyam Bihari.

56
In paragraph 5 of his examination-in-chief, P.W.88 stated that
Dy.S.P. Shri Dhar Mandal at the place of occurrence itself asked the
witness as also S.I. Abhay Kumar Singh, S.I. Bhuneshwar Yadav,
A.S.I., Raghuraj Kishore Pandey all posted in Mehandia P.S. and S.I.
Ashok Ram, S.I. Anil Kumar, A.S.I. Azahar Husain, all of Arwal
P.S. to prepare inquest report and to seize blood stained earth/ empty
cartridges as also other incriminating articles and prepare the seizure
list. In paragraph 6, P.W.88 stated that he prepared the inquest report
of deceased Kunwar Paswan, Amar Paswan, Rita Devi, Kabutari
Devi, Anoj Paswan, Rajrania Devi, Rohan Paswan, Rampolice
Mahto, Basanti Devi, Taregani Devi in his own handwriting and
signature by carbon process, which was marked as Exts. 22 22/9. In
paragraph 7, the witness further stated that he prepared the seizure
list of incriminating articles found at the place of occurrence in his
own handwriting and signature by carbon process, which was marked
as Exts. 23-23/10, as would appear from his statement made in
paragraphs 8 to 18. Having prepared the inquest/seizure list, the
witness also recorded the statement of P.W. 30 Om Prakash Paswan
and P.W.31 Panchanand Paswan, the seizure list witnesses and
submitted the inquest report, seizure list and the statement of the
witnesses along with supplementary case diary to the first
Investigating Officer Dy.S.P. Shri Dhar Mandal. This witness has

57
also proved inquest/ seizure list prepared by S.I. Abhay Kumar
Singh, S.I. Bhuneshwar Prasad Yadav, S.I. Ashok Ram, S.I. Anil
Kumar, A.S.I. Raghuraj Singh, which was marked as Exts. 24 24/4,
25-25/6, 26-26/10, 27-27/5, 28-28/7 and 29-29/10. and submitted the
same along with the supplementary case diary to first Investigating
Officer Shri Dhar Mandal, P.W.85.
29. P.W.91 Mirza Maksood Alam Beg, Dy.S.P., C.I.D.,
Patna took over the investigation on 10.12.1997 from first
Investigating Officer Shri Dhar Mandal, Dy.S.P., P.W.85 in the light
of instruction of DIG, CID, Patna under memo no. 3829/C dated
09.12.1997, wireless message No. 3830 dated 09.12.1997. Mirza
Maksood Alam Beg having taken charge of the investigation,
perused the case diary of the case maintained by the earlier
Investigating Officer along with his investigating team comprising of
Inspector Indu Bhushan Prasad, Inspector Anant Prakash Singh,
Inspector Ashok Kumar Das, Inspector Ram Sharan Chaudhary, S.I.
Shyam Nandan Sharma, S.I. Deo Narayan Mahto, S.I. Ravindra Nath
Sharma, S.I. Dhananjay Kumar and other A.S.Is. Second
Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg along with his team
recorded the statement of the informant as also inspected the place of
occurrence in the light of the information gathered from the
informant. Second Investigating Officer also recorded the statement

58
of Rajvinesh Rajbansi @ Ramvinesh Rajbansi, Munni Rajbansi,
Yaduni Rajbansi, Mukul Rajbansi, Sikandar Chaudhary, Dudh Nath
Chaudhary, Belwanti Kumari, Sohrai Mahto, Laxman Rajbansi,
Surendra Rajbansi, Ramugrah Rajbansi, Yugal Ravidas, Subedar
Ravidas, Baijnath Prasad, Ram Vinay Prasad, Anil Kumar, Pappu
Kumar, Kamaldeo Ram, Kamakhya Narayan, Sahindra Paswan, Om
Prakash Paswan, Panchanand Paswan, Ramashray Ram on
15.12.1997. Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg
also examined Ramnuj Pandit, Dukhan Chaudhary, Bhagwan
Ramani, Bhutti Ram, Sidhnath Paswan and then instructed Inspector
Ashok Kumar Das and S.I. Deo Narayan Mahto, members of
investigating team to obtain post-mortem, injury report and submit
the same along with supplementary case diary. On 17, 18.12.1997,
Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg recorded the
statement of Accused No. 3 Ashok Singh, Accused No. 2 Surendra
Singh, Accused No. 5 Baleshwar Sharma, Accused No. 16 Kawal
Singh @ Ram Kewal Sharma, Accused No. 12 Nand Singh, Accused
No. 15 Chandeshwar Singh, Accused No. 8 Nawal Singh in jail. On
18.12.1997, Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg
further recorded the statement of Accused No. 21 Mithilesh Sharma,
Accused No. 20 Babloo Sharma, Accused No. 19 Ashok Sharma,
Bhushan Singh ( died during trial), Accused No.1 Girja Singh,

59
Sudarshan Sharma ( died during trial), Accused No. 26 Surendra
Sharma, Accused No. 18 Shiv Mohan Sharma, Awadhesh Singh,
Accused No. 7 Bijendra Singh, Accused No. 11 Shatrughan Singh,
Accused No. 10 Nandu Singh and non-FIR accused Rabindra Kumar
Singh, Ram Ekbal Sharma, Sunil Kumar, Navin Kumar, Awani
Bhushan in jail. Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam
Beg also examined Chaukidar Baleshwar Singh, Ramdhari Singh,
Ram Chandra Chamar, Awadhesh Chamar, Mangal Chamar, Jawahar
Mushar, Gopichand Singh, Keshlal Chaudhary, Siyaram Chaudhary,
Dashrath Sharma, Surendra Prasad, Ayodhya, Naresh Kahar, Hira
Sah, Hridya Sah, Sipahi Ram, Hari Narayan Ram, Rajan Ram, Amir
Chand Ram, Shiv Shankar Ravidas, Gupteshwar Kahar, Chaukidar
Purnmashi Ram, Raj Kumar Ram, Nathu Tanti, Kashi Sah, Ramnath
Ram, Jai Pati Paswan, Dashrath Ram and Onkar Tiwari. Having
recorded the statement of the aforesaid witnesses, Second
Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg obtained police
remand of Accused No.3 Ashok Singh and accused Sudarshan
Sharma who died during trial. Accused No. 14 Dharichan Chaudhary
surrendered in the court on 23.12.1997. He further recorded the
statement of Bhagera Kanu, Banshidhar Sharma and Jawahar
Mushar. Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg
also recorded the statement of injured Bimlesh Kumar. Second

60
Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg further instructed
Inspector Indu Bhushan Prasad, a member of his investigating team
to record statement of the injured getting treatment in PMCH who
having recorded the statement of Mahurati Devi, Mahesh Rajbansi
and Manoj Rajbansi, submitted supplementary case diary containing
their statement. Second I.O Mirza Maksood Alam Beg also obtained
the criminal antecedent of members of Ranvir Sena, namely, Jata
Singh, Vijay Singh, Suresh Rai, Bhola Rai, Bipin Bihari Rai, Goga
@ Shiv Shankar Rai, Pramod Singh, Santu Singh, Chandra Keshwar
Rai, Arvind Kumar Singh, Ramesh Singh, Srinivas Pandey, Sidhnath
Rai, who have been found accused in different cases of Sahar,
Sandesh, Udwant, Ara Town, Ara Nawada P.S. Accused Kamlesh
Bhatt was found accused in Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 14/79, 20/97,
40/93, 84/84, 113/84, 11/85, 71/87, 8/88, 75/90, 7/85, 91/93, 69/97,
Kamakhya Singh was found accused in Charpokhari P.S. Case No.
69/97, Brahmeshwar Singh Mukhia was found accused in Sandesh
P.S. Case No. 35/95, 45/95, Sahar P.S. Case No. 37/95, Sandesh P.S.
Case No. 50/95, Udwant Town P.S. Case No. 154/95, Sahar P.S.
Case No. 49/96, 67/96, 68/96, 69/96, Charpokhari P.S. Case No.
61/96, Sahar P.S. Case No. 98/96, 153/96, Sandesh P.S. Case No.
119/96, Pawana P.S. Case No. 93/97, Panjore P.S. Case No. 35/97,
Vishwanath Rai was found accused in Pawana P.S. Case No. 123/95,

61
119/96, Hridaya Singh was found accused in Sandesh P.S. Case No.
43/97, Ajay Singh was found accused in Sandesh P.S. Case No.
37/97. Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg
having collected post-mortem report, examined witnesses, including
eye-witnesses, submitted charge sheet No. 24 dated 27.2.1998
against 48 accused persons in custody citing 152 witnesses which is
in his handwriting and signature marked as Ext.33. He further
submitted supplementary charge sheet No. 103 dated 9.7.1998
against 2 accused persons, which is in his handwriting and signature
marked Ext.33/1.
30. Having considered the evidence of the police
officials, it is also necessary to examine the evidence of the medical
officers, P.Ws. 86, 89 and 90 who examined the injured on 2.12.1997
and referred them for better treatment to Patna and other places. On
2.12.1997 while P.W. 86 Dr. Rajendra Prasad was posted as Medical
Officer, Primary Health Centre, Arwal, he examined injured Bimlesh
son of Lodhar Rajbansi, Mahesh, son of Ram Biresh Rajbansi,
Ramnuj Rajbansi son of Sudhin Rajbansi and Mahurati Devi C/o
Laxman Rajbansi at 11.30, 11.35, 11.40 and 11.45 A.M. respectively
and referred the injured for treastment at PMCH. Their injury reports
have been marked as Exts. 6 6/3.
31. P.W. 89 Dr. G.C. Jha while posted at PMCH, Patna

62
in the department of Plastic Surgery, examined Bimlesh Kumar son
of Sohrai Rajbansi on 2.12.1997 at 4.30 P.M. after the injured was
referred from Govt. hospital, Arwal under reference No. 4587 dated
2.12.1997 and found lacerated wound just below right lower eye lid,
charring all around. The injury report has been marked as Ext.30.
32. P.W.90 Dr. Jainendra Kumar was serving as
Surgical Registrar, PMCH, Patna on 2.12.1997 and in that capacity
examined Mahurati Devi wife of Vidya Nand at 4.30 P.M. after she
was referred from State dispensary, Arwal and found foreign body
shadow at the level of L-1, L-2 on the right side just below the costal
margin. Another foreign body was also seen at anterior chest. The
injury report has been marked as Ext.31. On the same day, P.W.90
examined Majesh Rajbansi son of Ram Binay Rajbansi, Ramanuj
Rajbansi, son of Ram Sudhin Rajbansi at 4.35 P.M. Their injury
reports have been marked as Exts. 31/1, 31/2.
33. P.Ws. 19 to 22 are the Medical Officers posted at
Sadar Hospital, Jehanabad and P.W.23 is the Medical Officer posted
at Additional Primary Health Centre, Mandil, Jehanabad, on
2.12.1997 they conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies of 58
deceased and found 53 deceased killed in village Bathe were shot by
fire arms and the 5 deceased whose bodies were found on the
southern bank of river Sone were killed after slitting their neck. Post-

63
mortem reports have been marked as Exts. 1 1/57.
34. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
assailants were from Sahar area in Bhojpur district and were stranger
to the informant and the witnesses. In order to establish their identity,
the fardbeyan, Ext.19 and the formal FIR, Ext.21 has been antedated,
which would be evident from the following facts:
Fardbeyan of P.W. 41 was scribed by P.W. 88
Akhilendra Kumar Singh on 2.12.1997 on 9.30 A.M. After recording
of the fardbeyan, the same was forwarded to the P.S. for institution
of the case. It appears from Column No. 3 ([k ) of the FIR that the
fardbeyan reached the P.S. on 2.12.1997. The column in the FIR for
indicating the time of receipt of the fardbeyan in the P.S. has been
kept blank, but from the evidence of P.W. 88, paragraph 52, it
appears that fardbeyan reached Mehandia P.S. on 2.12.1997 at about
3.00 P.M., which fact is also corroborated from column no. 3 (x ) of
the FIR as in the said column, it has been stated that fardbeyan was
received at the P.S. vide Station Diary Entry No. 38 at 15.00 hours. It
further appears from the FIR that after receipt of the fardbeyan,
instant Mehandia P.S. Case No. 126 of 1997 was registered on
2.12.1997 and dispatched to the court through special messenger on
2.12.1997 itself. Information about registration of the fardbeyan was
also transmitted to P.W.85 first Investigating Officer Dy.S.P. Shri

64
Dhar Mandal on 2.12.1997 at about 4.05 P.M. through wireless,
which fact would appear from his evidence in paragraph 5 yet the
FIR reached CJM, Jehanabad on 4.12.1997, which is evident from
the endorsement made by the CJM on the FIR. It is submitted by the
counsel for the appellants that neither P.W.88, who has scribed
fardbeyan, in paragraphs 54 and 56 of his evidence at page 660 of the
paper book nor P.W.85 first Investigating Officer in paragraphs 46 to
49 at pages 639, 640 of the paper book nor P.W.91 Second
Investigating Officer Dy.S.P. Mirza Maksood Alam Beg in
paragraphs 85 at page 686 of the paper book has explained as to why
the FIR did not reach the court on 2, 3.12.1997 although the distance
between Mehandia P.S. and the Jehanabad Civil Court is about 50
Kms. and the two are connected by motorable road over which
vehicular traffic is always available as has been admitted by the first
Investigating Officer P.W.85 himself in paragraph 45 of his evidence
yet P.Ws. 85, 88 and 91 failed to explain the delay in receipt of the
FIR in court. Learned counsel also pointed out that 2,3.12.1997 being
working days, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have
explained the delay in reaching the FIR of Mehandia P.S. Case No.
126 of 1997 dated 2.12.1997 to Jehanabad Civil Court on 4.12.1997.
35. It is submitted, with reference to the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan

65
Singh and others Vrs. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 Supreme
Court 2552, Shivlal and another Vrs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR
2012 Supreme Court 280, that delay alone in receipt of the FIR in
court cannot be a factor for rejecting the prosecution case, but delay
in receipt of FIR in court coupled with other circumstance like delay
in recording the statement of the eye-witnesses may persuade the
court to reject the prosecution case. In a given case if a number of
dead or injured persons is very high, delay in dispatching the FIR is
natural. In the instant case, fardbeyan was recorded on 2.12.1997 at
9.30 AM, which was received in the P.S. on 2.12.1997 at 3.00 P.M.
and soon thereafter FIR was drawn and dispatched to Civil Court,
Jehanabad on 2.12.1997 itself through special messenger, but the
same reached the Jehanabad Civil Court on 4.12.1997 which delay
having not been explained by the four police officers examined in the
case, who were part of the investigating team, coupled with other
circumstance that eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14,
16 were also not examined on 2.12.1997, this Court should reject the
evidence of the eye-witnesses for the reason that if those witnesses
had any clue about the assailants, they must have disclosed their
name to the first Investigating Officer P.W.85 or the scribe of
fardbeyan P.W.88 who visited the houses of the deceased and met
their relatives soon after the occurrence. In this connection, it is

66
pointed out, with reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Marudanal Augusti Vrs. State of Kerala, AIR 1980
Supreme Court 638, that where the FIR is antedated, the entire
fabric of the prosecution case would collapse. Learned counsel for
the appellants then submitted that the evidence of informant Binod
Paswan, P.W 41 is fit to be discarded as just before the occurrence he
was sleeping in the room situated west of the courtyard. On
instructions from his father, informant along with other family
members went to the other room in the east of the courtyard which
has door, bolt and it is in that room occurrence took place. It is his
evidence that while he had concealed himself in the other eastern
room, he identified 9 of the accused persons, who entered that room.
First Investigating Officer PW.85 has stated in paragraphs 3, 72 at
page 624, 644 of the paper book respectively that informant did show
him the spot where he concealed himself inside the room situated
west of the courtyard where no occurrence took place. Similar is the
evidence of Second Investigating Officer P.W.91 in paragraph 88 at
page 687 of the paper book. In paragraph 12 at page 552 of the paper
book, P.W.41 claimed that he did show the place where he concealed
himself to the police officers. P.W.41 did not state in his fardbeyan
or his case diary statement that he concealed himself in the eastern
room and that he identified 9 accused who entered that room by their

67
voice. Aforesaid omission made by the informant has been proved
through Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg
P.W.91 in paragraph 121 of his evidence at page 691, 692 of the
paper book. In the said paragraph, P.W.91 denied that P.W.41
claimed before him that he identified 9 accused persons in the room
through their voice which is also evident from the case diary
statement of the informant P.W.41 recorded by Second Investigating
Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg P.W.91 annexed with the written
submission filed on behalf of the State. P.W.41 has stated in
paragraph 18 that he came out of his house after five minutes of the
assailants leaving the house and then went to the roof of his uncle.
Aforesaid statement is not found either in the fardbeyan or case diary
statement of P.W.41. In this connection, it is further submitted that
the evidence of the informant P.W.41 in paragraph 18 is highly
improbable as it is unlikely that informant would leave the place
where he concealed himself to the risk of being seen by the
assasilants, who were freely roaming in the village. It is further
submitted that in the fardbeyan and the case diary statement,
informant stated that he went to the roof when the assailants were
retreating and leaving the village. In such situation, he could not have
identified the accused persons as their back would be towards him
and there was no source of light.

68
36. In this connection, it is further pointed out that
prosecution witnesses being completely unaware, clueless about the
identity of the assailants did not furnish the name of the assailants to
P.W. 88 when he reached the place of occurrence and visited their
houses for preparing the inquest report which he submitted to the
Investigating Officer along with supplementary case diary, as would
appear from his evidence in Paragraph 40 at page 660 of the paper
book. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellants further
referred to the evidence of P.W. 85, first Investigating Officer Dy.
S.P. Shri Dhar Mandal in paragraph 3 (r) of his evidence at page 633
of the paper book that first Investigating Officer began inspection of
1-14 place of occurrence on 2.12.1997 at 11 A.M. and after
completing the inspection recorded in paragraph 3 (r) at page 633 of
the paper book that he found 3, 2 dead bodies of fishermen on the
southern, northern bank of the river Sone as also foot prints of 100-
150 persons on the sandy bank of the river Sone coming towards
Bathe from Sahar area as also returning to Sahar. In this connection,
counsel for the appellants further submitted that Investigating Officer
having noticed the contents of the fardbeyan that assailants having
crossed the river Sone went towards village Chhotaki Kharaon within
Sahar P.S. contacted S.P. Bhojpur and Officer-in-charge, Sahar P.S.
at 10.35 A.M. requesting them to make raid in Sahar area to

69
apprehend the assailants, which fact would appear from the evidence
of P.W.85 in paragraph 36. It was also pointed out that having given
said instruction, Investigating Officer P.W.85 at 11 A.M. proceeded
to inspect all the 14 place(s) of occurrence including southern,
northern bank of the river Sone and found three dead bodies of
Chanarik Chaudhary son of Chulhan Chaudhary, his two sons,
Gorakh Chaudhary and Shiv Kailash Chaudhary on the southern
bank and two dead bodies of Naresh Chaudhary and Ram Niwas
Chaudhary both sons of Mahesh Chaudhary on the northern bank of
the river Sone near a hut where copious blood was also found on the
bank together with a boat anchored also smeared with blood. In the
light of the dead bodies and the evidence of violence on both the
banks of the river Sone, Investigating Officer P.W.85 again contacted
Officer-in-charge, Sahar P.S. at about 4.15 P.M. and requested him to
make raid and track the assailants who had gone towards Sahar area
to village Mathia, Chhotaki Kharaon, Barki Kharaon, Lodipur, which
fact would appear from paragraphs 6, 40 of the evidence of P.W.85
at pages 634, 639 of the paper book.
37. Learned counsel for the appellants with reference
to the evidence of P.Ws. 1, Belwanti Devi, P.W. 2- Sikandar
Chaudhary, P.W. 4 Dudh Nath Chaudhary, P.W. 6 Mutur Rajbansi,
P.W. 7 Subedar Ravidas, P.W. 9 Yugal Ravidas, P.W.10 Mahurati

70
Devi, P.W. 11 Bimlesh Kumar, P.W. 12 Munni Rajbansi, P.W. 14
Sohrai Mahto, P.W. 16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansi, all eye witnesses
submitted that the aforesaid witnesses met the police officials on
2.12.1997 yet their case diary statement was not recorded. The only
reason for not recording their statement could be that these witnesses
had not identified the assailants and had no information/ clue about
the occurrence, which was required to be given to the police. In this
connection, he referred to paragraph 8 of the evidence of P.W. 1
Belwanti Devi at page 416 of the paper book where she has admitted
that police came to the place of occurrence in the morning which
followed the occurrence and she recorded her statement but her
statement recorded on 2.12.1997 is not available in the case diary
which fact is evident from the evidence of first Investigating Officer
P.W. 85 paragraph 20 where he has categorically stated that P.W. 1
recorded her statement on 4.12.1997. Learned counsel next referred
to the evidence of P.W. 2 Sikandar Chaudhary in paragraph 16 at
page 422 of the paper book wherefrom it appears that P.W. 2
Sikandar Chaudhary and his brother P.W. 4 Dudh Nath Chaudhary
recorded their police statement in the morning at 8 A.M. which
followed the occurrence in the orchard in presence of 250 villagers
but the said statement is not available in the case diary as according
to the first Investigating Officer P.W. 85 in paragraph 13 at page 635

71
of the paper book the evidence of P.Ws. 2,4 was recorded at 8 A.M.
on 3.12.1997. P.W. 6 Mutur Rajbansi in paragraphs 13,14 at page
437 of the paper book has also admitted that in the morning which
followed the occurrence administration i.e. Collector, police,
Minister etc. had come to the place of occurrence and he made his
police statement but the authorities did not verify his claim that he
concealed himself over his thatched roof. The police statement of the
witness referred to in paragraph 14 of his evidence is not available in
the case diary as according to the first Investigating Officer P.W. 85
he was examined on 3.12.1997 at 8 A.M. which is also evident from
paragraph 13 of the evidence of P.W. 85. P.W. 7 Subedar Ravidas in
paragraph 15 of his evidence at page 439 of the paper book has also
accepted the fact that police came to the place of occurrence in the
morning which followed the occurrence and made enquiries from
him. The witness, however, is not aware as to when his statement
was recorded by the police. From the evidence of first Investigating
Officer P.W. 85 paragraph 31 at page 637 of the paper book it
appears that the police statement of P.W. 7 Subedar Ravidas was
recorded on 8.12.1997. From the evidence of P.W. 9 Yugal Ravidas
paragraph 16 at page 446 of the paper book it appears that P.W. 9
also admitted the fact that police came to the place of occurrence
village in the morning which followed the occurrence but denied the

72
suggestion that he recorded his police statement after 5-6 days of the
occurrence. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W. 85
in paragraph 31 at page 637 of the paper book, it is evident that P.W.
9 recorded his police statement on 8.12.1997 and not in the morning
which followed the occurrence. Learned counsel with reference to
the evidence of P.W. 10 Mahurati Devi and P.W. 11 Bimalesh
Kumar submitted that both were injured and sent for medical
examination by the first Investigating Officer P.W. 85 on 2.12.1997
as he found them injured during the occurrence, but the two
witnesses did not record their case diary statement. From the
evidence of second Investigating Officer P.W. 91, Dy.S.P. Mirza
Maksood Alam Beg in paragraphs 29, 113 it appears that police
statement of Bimalesh Kumar was recorded by P.W. 91 after
18.12.1997 on 22.12.1997 vide paragraph 94 of the evidence of
Second Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg P.W.91 and
police statement of P.W. 10 Mahurati Devi was recorded by
Inspector Indu Bhushan Prasad on instruction from second
Investigating Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg (P.W. 91) who took
charge of the investigation after 10.12.1997 on 18.12.1997. P.W. 10
has not named anybody in her statement recorded before the police.
Her evidence in paragraph 7 at page 449 rules out the presence of her
brother Ram Vinesh Rajbansi. Learned counsel for the appellants

73
then referred to the evidence of P.W. 12 Munni Rajbansi, son of
Pappan Rajbansi in paragraph 12 of his evidence at page 456 of the
paper book where he has accepted that police came to the place of
occurrence in the morning which followed the occurrence, saw the
dead bodies but did not draw any document. All his family members
were killed during the occurrence but he did not make any statement
though he was present in the village. First Investigating Officer P.W.
85 in paragraph 10 of his evidence has stated that he recorded the
statement of P.W.12 Munni Rajbansi, son of Pappan Rajbansi on
2.12.1997. Aforesaid evidence of first Investigating Officer P.W. 85
is required to be considered in the light of the evidence of P.W. 12 in
paragraph 9 of his evidence where he states that his statement was
recorded by the police after 8-10 days of the occurrence and it is
incorrect to state that in his police statement he had not named
accused no. 14 Dharichan and accused no. 11 Shatrughan Singh.
Second Investigating Officer P.W. 91 in paragraph 118 of his
evidence has stated that P.W. 12 had not named Dharichan and
Shatrughan before him. P.W. 14 Soharai Mahato in paragraph 3 at
page 462 of his evidence has stated that police arrived in the village
in the morning following the occurrence between 8-10 A.M. when he
was weeping. His statement was recorded by the police after 6-7 days
of the occurrence. The witness further stated that he has not named

74
accused no. 5 Baleshwar, Accused No. 16 Kawal, Accused No. 10
Nandu before the police. From the evidence of first Investigating
Officer P.W. 85, paragraph 20 also it appears that this witness was
examined by him on 4.12.1997. P.W. 16 Ram Ugarah Rajbansi in
paragraph 21 of his evidence at page 469 of the paper book has stated
that the police came to the place of occurrence village in the morning
following the occurrence at about 8-8.30 A.M. He further stated that
he is not aware who recorded their statement before the police on that
day. P.W. 16 accepts in the same paragraph that he did not inform the
police that he has seen the occurrence and his statement be recorded.
His statement appears to have been recorded by the second
Investigating Officer P.W. 91 after he took charge of the
investigation on 10.12.1997 and made inspection of the place of
occurrence on 11.12.1997 some time thereafter.
38. With reference to the aforesaid evidence, learned
counsel for the appellants submitted that where the eye-witnesses are
available Investigating Officer has to record their statement without
any delay whatsoever. Even a delay of few hours in recording their
statement amounts to a serious infirmity in prosecution case. In this
connection, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel & Anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 135 and submitted that

75
delay in recording the statement of eye-witnesses may amount to a
serious infirmity in the prosecution case. If there are concomitant
circumstance to suggest that investigator was deliberately marking
time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case
and the eye-witnesses to be introduced, unexplained delay of two
days i.e. 2,3.12.1997 in reaching the F.I.R. to the court on 4.12.1997
suggest that fardbeyan was not only ante-dated but investigator was
marking time by not recording the statement of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9,
10, 11, 12, 14, 16. Normally, in a case where the commission of the
crime is alleged to have been seen by the witnesses who are easily
available, a prudent investigator would give precedence to recording
the statement of the eye-witnesses over the evidence of other
witnesses. In the instant case, first Investigating Officer P.W. 85
should have recorded statement of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,
14, 16 on 2.12.1997 itself as all these witnesses were available in the
village and had met him but for the reasons best known to the
Investigating Officer, their statement has not been recorded.
39. Learned counsel for the appellants further assailed
the evidence of P.W. 11 Bimlesh Kumar on the ground that P.W.11
in his evidence in court has stated that he identified the assailants
when he came outside the room into the courtyard. His case diary
statement is that he sustained the injury inside his room. Aforesaid

76
contradiction has been proved by Second Investigating Officer Mirza
Maksood Alam Beg P.W.91 in paragraph 117 at page 691 of the
paper book. In paragraph 5, P.W.11 admitted that he felt frightened
and covered himself with a cotton sheet. According to the learned
counsel, he would not be able to identify the assailants. It is further
submitted that in paragraph 10 at page 451, P.W.11 claimed that he
was shot by Dharma Singh, which fact is not stated by him in his
case diary statement as proved by Mirza Maksood Alam Beg P.W.91
in paragraph 117. It is also submitted that P.W.89, Dr. G.C. Jha
examined P.W.11 and found that P.W.11 suffered lacerated wound
just below the right lower eye-lid, which according to the learned
counsel could not be caused by a direct firearm shot as claimed by
the witness. Learned counsel assailed the evidence of P.W.10
Mahurati Devi and P.W.8 Ramvinesh Rajbansi on the ground that
P.W.10 in her case diary statement recorded on 18.12.1997 by Indu
Bhushan Prasad on the instruction of Second Investigating Officer
Mirza Maksood Alam Beg P.W.91 did not name any of the
miscreants, which fact was confirmed by the Second Investigating
Officer Mirza Maksood Alam Beg P.W.91 in paragraph 114 of his
evidence. In view of confusion made in the said paragraph by using
two negatives, we asked the counsel for the State to produce the case
diary statement of P.W.10 recorded by Indu Bhushan Prasad, but

77
such statement was not produced before us. It is further submitted
that evidence of P.W.10 in paragraph 7 at page 449 of the paper book
rules out the presence of P.W.8 in the village on the date and time of
occurrence. In this connection, it is also pointed out that P.W.8 Ram
Vinesh Rajbansi admitted in paragraph 6 of his evidence that he
permanently resides in his matrimonial village for the last 4-5 years
which is at a distance of 5 Kosh and that he heard about the
occurrence on the radio. In view of the aforesaid evidence of P.W.8,
learned counsel submitted that it is quite evident that on the date,
night of occurrence, P.W.8 was not available in the village. Learned
counsel further assailed the evidence of P.W.12, Munni Rajbansi on
the ground that his case diary statement was recorded on 12.12.1997.
In this connection, it is pointed out that first Investigating Officer
P.W. 85 has admitted in paragraph 76 at page 645 that he met the
witness on 2.12.1997 and that the witness did not record his
statement. In this connection, learned counsel also referred to
paragraph 12 at page 456 of the paper book of the evidence of
P.W.12 Munni Rajbansi where he has admitted that he met the police
in the morning of the occurrence.
40. Learned counsel assailed the evidence of P.W.6
Mutur Rajbansi on the ground that his case diary statement was
recorded on 3.12.1997 in which he has admitted that he concealed

78
himself in the gourd foliage/ creepers on the top of his roof and
according to the learned counsel, it would be difficult for anyone to
identify the miscreants from such position. Learned counsel also
assailed the evidence of P.W.2 Sikandar Chaudhary and P.W.4 Dudh
Nath Chaudhary as their case diary statement was recorded on
3.12.1997 though they admitted that they met the Investigating
Officer on 2.12.1997 and yet their case diary statement was not
recorded. It is further submitted that both the witnesses have
concealed themselves and were not in a position to identify the
assailants. Learned counsel then assailed the evidence of P.W.1
Belwanti Devi on the ground that her case diary statement was
recorded on 4.12.1997 in which she admitted that she concealed
herself under a bed which had covering on the top of it. According to
the learned counsel from that position it would only be possible for
her to see the feet of the person who entered the room. Learned
counsel next challenged the evidence of P.W.14 Sohrai Mahto on the
ground that his case diary statement was also recorded on 3.12.1997
in which he did not name any of the assasilants, which fact is
admitted by him in court vide paragraph 3 at page 462 of the paper
book. Learned counsel also challenged the evidence of P.W.3
Laxman Rajbansi, P.W.5 Surendra Rajbansi and P.W.16 Ram Ugrah
Rajbansi on the ground that the case diary statement of P.W.3 and

79
P.W.5 was recorded on 5.12.1997 whereas the statement of P.W.16
Ram Ugrah Rajbansi was recorded after 12.12.1997. According to
the learned counsel, aforesaid witnesses having concealed themselves
were not in a position to identify the assailants. Learned counsel
further assailed the evidence of P.W.7 Subedar Ravidas and P.W.9
Yugal Ravidas on the ground that their case diary statement was
recorded on 8.12.1997 though they had met the police on 2.12.1997
and had not disclosed the name of the miscreants vide paragraph 15
of P.W.7 and paragraph 16 of P.W.9 at page 439 and 446 of the
paper book respectively.
41. Learned counsel for the State in opposition
submitted that in the present occurrence, 58 persons have been
selectively killed in village Laxmanpur Bathe on 1.12.1997 at about
10.30 P.M. while they were asleep and 7 injured in 13 different
houses located in a line. Out of the 58 killed, 53 belong to Dalit
section of the society and 5 were fishermen. The motive for the
occurrence as stated by the prosecution witnesses is that members of
the Ranvir Army wanted to establish their hegemony in the village
and for establishing such hegemony, they struck terror on the
selected members of the Dalit community who demanded due wages
from the members of the Ranvir Sena. The incident was perpetuated
selectively to teach lesson to the labourers who persisted with their

80
demand for due wages.
42. According to the learned State counsel, fardbeyan
was recorded by P.W.88 at the instance of the informant, P.W.41 at
9.30 A.M. on 2.12.1997 after the police arrived in the place of
occurrence village. 7 members of the family of the informant were
killed in his presence. He named 26 assailants in the fardbeyan and
they are all accused in the case. Those who were not named in the
fardbeyan have been acquitted by the trial court. The fardbeyan was
registered as FIR on 2.12.1997 at 3.00 P.M. by S.I. Abhay Kumar
Singh.
43. The occurrene was investigated by Dy.S.P.,
P.W.85 during the period between 2.12.1997 till 9.12.1997 after
which the investigation was handed over to P.W.91, the Dy.S.P.,
CID, who according to the learned counsel for the State, took up
investigation from 10.12.1997. P.W.87, S.I. Incharge of Arwal P.S.
recorded the statement of few witnesses. According to the learned
counsel for the State, the investigation revealed as follows:
The accused and victim were known to each other living
in the same village or the adjoining village within a radious of 1
kilometre. Many of the eye-witnesses have deposed that they
identified the miscreants with the help of three cell torch carried by
the miscreants for identifying their targets. Light was also available

81
during the firing by the miscreants. According to the learned counsel
for the State recognition of the miscreants was fully possible as they
saw the members of their family i.e. father, mother, brother, sister,
wife, daughter, son being killed in front of them. The eye-witnesses,
however, managed to conceal themselves from the assailants. In this
connection, it is submitted, with reference to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Siddique and others v. State of U.P.,
(1999) 9 SCC 143, paragraphs 6, 7, State of U.P. v. Sukhpal
Singh and others, (2009) 4 SCC 385, paragraphs 10, 11, Sone Lal
and others v. State of U.P., (1978) 4 SCC 302, paragraph 16 and
Suraj Pal v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 64, paragraph 12,
that it is settled law that the accused can be identified even in
darkness with the help of torchlight, lantern.
44. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that
the Supreme Court in a catena of cases has sustained conviction even
where source of light was not disclosed. In the case of Nathuni
Yadav and others v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1997
Supreme Court 1808, Supreme Court sustained the conviction even
when there was absence of artificial light. In the case of S.
Sudershan Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR
2006 Supreme Court 2716, it has been held that as the accused were
known to the witnesses, identification in faint darkness was possible.

82
Learned counsel, with reference to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Babu and others, (2003) 11
SCC 280, paragraph 7, Kedar Singh and others vs. State of
Bihar, 1999 Cri.LJ 601 (SC), submitted that it has been held that
identification of known persons is possible from the manner of
speech, walking and gesticulating. Learned counsel further
submitted, with reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and
another, (2011) 3 SCC 654 and Dana Yadav @ Dahu and others
v. State of Bihar, (2002) 7 SCC 295 that conviction can be sustained
even where witness identified the accused for the first time in court
and the witness is not part of TIP especially when the witnesses knew
the accused from before.
after the incident accused persons were absconding and raids were
conducted to arrest them as has been stated by the Investigating
Officers P.Ws. 85 and 91 in the deposition before court. The
deposition in the trial was recorded after 12 years in January, 2009
after the High Court intervened and passed orders to expedite the
trial and transferred the matter to the court of 1
st
Additional Sessions
Judge, Patna as prior thereto the trial kept getting transferred from
one court to another and charges were framed only in December,

83
2008. The trial was delayed because the accused obtained bail during
long interregnum and did not want the trial to proceed.
46. According to the learned counsel, the question that
follows for consideration is whether the evidence of the eye-
witnesses should or should not be believed as the counsel for the
accused has not challenged the incident or the medical and other
evidence on record. What is denied is participation and identification
of the accused persons by the injured victims and the eye-witnesses
on the specious ground that the names of the accused had not been
taken by the witnesses before the police and that the name in the
fardbeyan, FIR dated 2.12.1997 has been concocted by antedating the
fardbeyan, FIR which reached the CJM, Jehanabad 36 hours later on
4.12.1997. According to the State counsel, delay in receipt of the
fardbeyan, FIR in court is because of the trauma of the loss of the
near and dear family members of the injured and other eye-witnesses.
Learned counsel further submitted that the minor contradictions
pointed out in the deposition of the Investigating Officer and the
prosecution witnesses by the counsel for the appellants that the
witnesses did not name the miscreants before the Investigating
Officer is hardly of any consequence as witnesses had categorically
stated in court that they had named the miscreants before the
Investigating Officer. The informant P.W.41 also did not mention in

84
detail all the facts which he had stated before P.W.85 in his
subsequent statement to P.W.91 and such omission is also of hardly
any significance. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that
according to the two Investigating Officers, some of the witnesses
did not mention the source of light for identification which is also of
no consequence. The witnesses have stated in court that they had
spoken to the Investigating Officer about the source of identification.
According to the learned counsel, aforesaid contradictions in the
evidence of the two I.Os., P.Ws. 85, 91 and the eye-witnesses is
because of delay in deposition made after 12 years of the occurrence
and may not be taken as a factor to reject the evidence of the eye,
injured witnesses.
47. To support the aforesaid submission, learned
counsel submitted that omission in statement recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. is not a contradiction in terms of Section 162 Cr.P.C.
unless what is actually deposed in court contradicts the statement
made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. For the aforesaid submission, he
relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram
Bali and others v. State, AIR (39) 1952 Allahabad 289,
Muninajappa and others v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 Mysore
138. He further contended that merely because there was lapse on the
part of the Investigating Officer in not taking further statement of the

85
witnesses injured, their testimony in court with substantive evidence
cannot be ignored or discarded even if they have made certain
improvements and there are certain major contradictions in their
testimony. In this connection, reliance is placed on the case of
Rajubhai Dhamirbhai Baria and others v. The State of Gujarat
and others, 2012 Vol. 114 (6) Bom.L.R. 3549. Learned counsel
further pointed out that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to
record the statement of the injured witnesses by visiting the hospital
after ascertaining whether they were in a fit condition to give their
statement. He further submitted that only because the name of the
accused have not been mentioned in the statement recorded by the
police and that their description is not given, the evidence of the eye-
witnesses cannot be discarded on that ground. Reliance in this
connection is placed on the case of Simon and others v. State of
Karnataka, (2004) 2 SCC 694 and Malkhansingh and others v.
State of M.P., (2003) 5 SCC 746, Rizan and another v. State of
Chattisgarh, (2003) 2 SCC 661, Munshi Singh Gautam (Dead)
and others v. State of M.P., (2005) 9 SCC 631, Rajubhai
Dhamirbhai Baria and others v. The State of Gujarat and others,
2012 Vol. 114 (6) Bom.L.R. 3549.
48. Learned counsel, with reference to the judgment
in the case of Ramji Ram and others v. The State of Bihar,

86
2003(1) PLJR 447, submitted that when the point for consideration
is whether statement of the eye-witnesses or that of Investigating
Officer is true, worthy of credence and acceptable, the courts have
held that if the testimony of the witnesses are consistent then it is
presumed that they would have stated the relevant material facts to
the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel further submitted that
expression statement or any part of such statement in Section 162
Cr.P.C. is not to be construed to mean single statement given by a
witness to a particular officer but takes within its sweep all the
statements given by the witness at different stages or on different
dates to different Investigating Officers or to the same Investigating
Officer. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of
Asan Tharayil Baby v. State of Kerala, 1981 CriLJ 1165.
49. Learned counsel for the State further submitted,
with reference to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case
of Emperor v. Ajit Kumar Ghosh and others, AIR (32) 1945 Cal
159, that the court needs to first consider whether the omission in the
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. amounts to
contradiction of stand taken by the witness in court. If it does then
the court will have to go into the question of proving the fact as to
whether the Investigating Officer actually omitted the statement of
the witness or not. It is submitted that an omission to state a fact by

87
itself can never be a contradiction.
50. Learned counsel then referred to the judgment of
Ramji Ram and others v. The State of Bihar, 2003(1) PLJR 447
and submitted that the High Court refused to rely on the words of the
Investigating Officer that witnesses had not deposed the material
facts in front of him during the investigation taking into account the
conduct of the Investigating Officer. The High Court further stated
that the witnesses in question being eye-witnesses of the event, their
testimony being consistent, it does not appear from their conduct that
they would not have stated the relevant material facts to the
Investigating Officer. The accused persons in the case were
convicted on the basis of their testimony, which according to the
Investigating Officer was not stated before him during investigation.
51. Learned counsel for the State next submitted that
most important aspect of the matter is that why injured witnesses i.e.
P.Ws. 10, 11, 17 and 18 be disbelieved. They having suffered firearm
injury, their presence at the time of incident is fixed and those whom
they have recognised are identified and ought to be believed as per
settled legal pronouncements. According to learned counsel, where a
witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the
testimony of that witness is generally considered to be reliable, as he
is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee in his presence at the

88
scene of crime and is unlikely to spare the actual assailant(s) in order
to falsely implicate others. Reliance in this connection is placed on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Sayeed v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, paragraphs 28-31.
52. Learned counsel then submitted that there is no
justifiable reason to disbelieve P.W.41. He has stuck to his evidence
and at the earliest point of time names have been furnished by him to
the police authorities. He has lost his near and dear ones. According
to the learned counsel, why should it be felt that he and other
witnesses are leaving out the actual culprit and falsely implicating the
accused persons. According to the learned counsel, the submission of
the counsel for the appellants that on account of delay of 36 hours in
reaching the FIR to the court of CJM, Jehanabad, the entire
prosecution case should be rejected is wholly specious and travesty
of justice for not only to the terror stricken society and the victims,
but would also show the callousness of the institutions of not being
sensitive to the plight of the Dalit victim but the hard realities of the
influence the forward caste can exercise in an agrarian rural
background.
53. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that
the evidence of the eye-witnesses who have lost their kith and kin,
near and dear ones like son, daughter, father, wife, uncle etc. and

89
who were shot in their very presence should be believed as against
any other evidence. The ocular evidence in the instant case is such
that having seen their kith and kin killed in their presence, the eye-
witnesses would not protect the real culprit and seek to falsely
implicate any other person, which is not a normal human conduct and
the prosecution witnesses should be believed. In the instant case,
prosecution witnesses who lost their several closest relatives, near
and dear, kith and kin (between 3 to 7 family members) are P.Ws. 1
to 12, 14, 16 to 18 and 41. There is no reason absolutely, not even on
account of the contradiction with their case diary statement as also
shoddy and defective investigation by P.Ws. 85, 91, to disbelieve the
aforesaid witnesses.
54. Learned counsel next submitted that true it is that
Accused Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 have been identified by one
witness only, but it is settled law that the evidence of single eye-
witness is enough to convict the accused. Reliance in this connection
is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade and another v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2
SCC 793, paragraph 19, Bhimapa Chandappa Hosamani and
others v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 11 SCC 323, paragraph 24,
State of M.P. v. Laakhan @ Lakhan, (2009) 14 SCC 433,
paragraph 10, Jhapsa Kabari and others etc. v. State of Bihar,

90
(2001) 10 SCC 94, paragraph 9. According to the learned counsel,
in the case of Krishna Mochi and others v. State of Bihar, (2002)
6 SCC 81, death sentence was awarded in similar facts and Supreme
Court held that the test propounded in the judgment of Masalti and
others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 Supreme Court
202 is not a cast iron rule.
55. Learned counsel further pointed out during the
hearing of the case that many of the prosecution witnesses have not
been cross-examined in detail on various aspects of their depositions
regarding identification of accused. In fact the identification of the
accused in court by the prosecution witnesses during recording of
their testimony was not disputed by the counsel for the accused who
were present in court. It is settled law that where a witness is not
cross-examined on any relevant aspect, the correctness of the
statement made by a witness cannot be disputed. Reliance in this
connection is placed on the judgment in the case of State v. Sushil
Sharma v. State, 2007 CriLJ 4008, paragraph 26. According to
the learned counsel, the unimpeached testimony of the witness on
this score has to be accpeted as has been rightly done by the trial
court.
56. According to the learned counsel, the submission
of the defence that prosecution witnesses have not ascribed a

91
concrete role to many of the accused persons during their statement
before the Investigating Officer or before the learned trial court. In
this regard, it is submitted that it is settled law that where a crowd of
assailants who are members of an unlawful assembly proceed to
commit an offence of murder in pursuance of the common object of
the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for the witnesses to
describe accurately the part played by each one of the assailants.
Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2010) 10 SCC 259, paragraphs 25-27, Gangadhar Behera and
others v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381, paragraphs 22, 23.
57. Learned counsel further submitted that the period
during which P.W.85 carried out the investigation i.e. for 8 days, the
prosecution witnesses were attending to the last rites of their kith and
kin and were under tremendous shock and trauma as so many
persons have been killed in a small hamlet in the same night. The
witnesses were scared and scarred for life. The manner of
investigation of P.Ws. 85, 91 indicates the defective investigation
carried out by them. According to learned counsel for the State,
present occurrence is a clear-cut case of murder of so many persons
and trial, identification as deposed by the witnesses without any ill
will should be believed and the two Investigating officers who

92
carried out the faulty investigation should be prosecuted under
Sections 182 and 195(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
58. According to learned counsel for the State there were
eye-witnesses who had their own relatives killed or injured. The
injured would be taking treatment and getting their injuries attended
to. They may also not have been in a position to give their detailed
statement, inasmuch as the Investigating Officer has remained within
the parameters of the village while the injured were taken to the
hospital. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve P.Ws. 1 to 12,
14, 16 to 18 and 41 qua their deposition with reference to the accused
persons. Even if a major portion of the evidence is found to be
deficient, residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, it is the
duty of the court to separate grain from the chaff. In the present case
the contention of the defence that the said witnesses were tortured is
ex facie erroneous. A reading of the testimony of all witnesses shows
that they have each given vivid description of the events and named
the accused whom they came across and could recognize. They have
also reiterated their statement during the recording of their testimony
in court 12 years later and withstood sustained cross-examination.
59. Learned counsel further submitted that merely
because of some exaggeration or embellishment, the court cannot
discard the testimony of eye-witnesses. There would hardly be a

93
witness whose evidence does not contain some amount of
exaggeration or embellishment. Reliance in this connection is placed
on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev
Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2001)8 SCC 86 paragraphs 2,
3, Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of U.P., 2012 (5) SCALE 561
paragraphs 20-24, Rizan and another Vs. State of Chattisgarh,
(2003) 2 SCC 661 paragraph 12.
testimony of the witnesses ought not to be rejected merely on the
ground that they have committed certain factual omissions at some
point of time. This Court should take into account that mental tention
can lead to omission to state everything on the first occasion by a
witness and the same should not be a ground to reject the deposition
entirely. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 259 paragraphs 25-27, Jhapsa Kabari &
Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 10 SCC 94 paragraph 9.
the evidence of hostile witness if it finds corroboration from the facts
of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the
accused. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Lella Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of A.P.

94
(2004) 9 SCC 713, Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2012 (12) SCALE 710.
62. Learned counsel for the State also submitted that the
principle underlining section 465 Cr.P.C. has to be adhered to and
ocular evidence of the witnesses to be believed if reliable and points
a definite finger to the accused who participated in the crime. Then
there is no reason to disbelieve that evidence merely because of the
contradiction vis--vis case diary statement on account of defective
investigation by the Investigating Officer. The view that the accused
should not be prejudiced has undergone a sea change in terms of the
judgment taking into account the hard reality prevailing in the society
today. According to the learned counsel for the State time has come
that the entire prosecution case could be jeopardised by a compatible
Investigating Officer where the accused are in a position to influence
the Investigating Officer to investigate in a particular manner. The
victims are as much important and their case should not be
jeopardised only because the accused may say that there is some
prejudice caused to them. In terms of long line of decisions referred
to above the accused and the victims are at par for the purpose of
consideration of the evidence of the eye-witnesses in order to reach
the correct conclusion. Learned counsel then submitted that the
points raised by the appellants that there is delay of 36 hours in

95
reaching the F.I.R. to the court of C.J.M. which is 60 Km. away from
the P.S. and therefore, the prosecution case is false as during the
interregnum of 36 hrs. appellants were falsely implicated, is wholly
misconceived. In this connection, it is submitted that first
Investigating Officer P.W. 85 has stated in his evidence at page 634
of the paper book that F.I.R. was ready for dispatch to the court of
C.J.M. on 2.12.1997 itself as recorded in the F.I.R. itself and found
correct by the trial court at page 1168 of the paper book and the delay
stands explained as Investigating Officer had a very hectic schedule
to follow in view of the magnitude of the crime i.e. sending injured
to hospital, preparation of post-mortem and inquest-reports, seizure
of materials and sending the material for forensic examination,
recording of statement of witnesses, securing the place of crime,
restoring law and order, attending to visits by senior government and
political functionaries, conducting raids and arresting the accused.
from the evidence of P.W. 88 at page 654, 655 it is clear that the
person who scribed the F.I.R. was also assigned to complete various
tasks. These tasks were important and could not be left out for being
carried out on a later date. According to learned counsel the delay of
approximately 36 hours in sending the F.I.R. to the C.J.M. is very
well explained. Learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the

96
Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Gokaran and
others 1984 (Supp.) SCC 482 paragraph 13, Pala Singh and
another Vs. State of Punjab (1972) 2 SCC 640 paragraph 8 and
submitted that mere delay in sending the special report to the C.J.M.
is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
64. Learned counsel for the State finally submitted that
in the present case the counsel for the appellants have not put any
question to the prosecution witnesses disputing the fact that the
accused were known to the witnesses. Many of the prosecution
witnesses have categorically stated that there was light from three
cell torch to identify the accused while firing there would be
additional light from the weapon. None of the counsel for the
accused has impeached or challenged the identification of the
accused in court despite being present which has also been taken note
by the trial court. The factum of incident having occurred is not in
dispute. Prosecution witnesses have only questioned on the specific
role being ascribed to each of the accused. The witnesses have not
questioned at all or disputed the fact that the accused took part in the
carnage. According to learned counsel for the State the accused
persons were absconding after the incident and raids were conducted
to arrest them. It is in this scenario the High Court has to judge the
culpability of the accused which in the respectful submission of the

97
State is writ large. The judgment of the trial court deserves to be
confirmed.
65. In the light of the submission made on behalf of
the appellants, State, I proceed to consider the merit of the
prosecution case as set out in the fardbeyan of the informant P.W.41,
Binod Paswan, Ext.19 and the evidence led in support thereof.
66. It appears, fardbeyan of the informant P.W.41,
Binod Paswan was scribed by P.W.88, Akhilendra Kumar Singh on
2.12.1997 at 9.30 A.M. After recording of the fardbeyan, the same
was forwarded to Mehandia P.S. for institution of the case. It appears
from Column No. 3 ([k ) of the FIR, Ext.21 that the fardbeyan
reached the P.S. on 2.12.1997. The column in the FIR for indicating
the time of receipt of the fardbeyan in the P.S. is blank, but from the
evidence of P.W. 88, paragraph 52, it appears that fardbeyan reached
Mehandia P.S. on 2.12.1997 at about 3.00 P.M., which is also
evident from column no. 3 (x ) of the FIR that fardbeyan was
received at the P.S. vide Station Diary Entry No. 38 at 15.00 hours. It
further appears from the FIR that after receipt of the fardbeyan,
present Mehandia P.S. Case No. 126 of 1997 was registered on
2.12.1997 and dispatched to the court through special messenger on
2.12.1997 itself. Information about registration of the fardbeyan was
also transmitted to P.W.85 first Investigating Officer Dy.S.P. Shri

98
Dhar Mandal on 2.12.1997 at about 4.05 P.M. through wireless,
which fact would appear from his evidence in paragraph 5. The FIR,
however, reached CJM, Jehanabad on 4.12.1997, as is evident from
the endorsement made by the CJM on the FIR. Aforesaid delay
caused by the prosecution in not reaching the FIR on 2,3.12.1997 in
the court of CJM, Jehanabad appears to be a serious lapse on the part
of the prosecution as none of the prosecution official witnesses,
especially the police officers examined in the case during trial,
namely, P.Ws. 85, 88, 91 even attempted to explain the delay in
receipt of the FIR in court though distance between Mehandia P.S.
and the Jehanabad Civil Court is about 50 Kms. and the two are
connected by motorable road over which vehicular traffic is always
available as has been admitted by the first Investigating Officer
P.W.85 in paragraph 45 of his evidence.
67. The delay simplicitor caused in receipt of the FIR
in court cannot be a factor for rejecting the prosecution case. Delay
in receipt of the FIR in court is required to be considered in the light
of the omission of the prosecution to examine the witnesses whose
statement was recorded by the first Investigating Officer P.W.85 on
2.12.1997 at 6.00 P.M. i.e. Munni Devi wife of Kaulu Rajbansi, Raj
Ganesh Rajbansi son of Laxman Rajbansi, Yaduni Rajbansi son of
Deosharan Rajbansi, which is evident from his evidence in paragraph

99
10 at page 634 of the paper book yet without giving any explanation
for not examining them, the prosecution has chosen to withhold those
witnesses from coming to court, is indicative of the fact that
aforesaid witnesses had not disclosed the name or identity of the
miscreants. Aforesaid delay in reaching the FIR as also failure of the
prosecution to examine the prosecution witnesses who made their
statement before the first Investigating Officer P.W.85 on 2.12.1997
is further required to be considered in the light of the fact that eye-
witnesses of the occurrence, P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 to 12, 14, 16
though available in the village on 2.12.1997, but their statement was
not recorded by the first Investigating Officer P.W.85 or the scribe of
fardbeyan, P.W.88 on 2.12.1997, who visited the houses of the
deceased and met their relatives, P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 to 12, 14,
16 and also prepared the inquest report of the deceased after
identification of the dead bodies by the inmates of the house who
managed to escape death by concealing themselves from the
miscreants, is also indicative of the fact that aforesaid prosecution
witnesses were not aware about the name of the assailants on
2.12.1997.
68. Now I proceed to consider the evidence of the
informant P.W.41, Binod Paswan. It appears, just before the
occurrence, P.W.41 was sleeping in the room situate west of the

100
courtyard. On instructions from his father, informant along with
other family members went to the other room in the east of the
courtyard which has door, bolt. It is in eastern room where his
mother and other family members were killed. It is his evidence that
while he concealed himself in the eastern room, he identified 9 of the
accused persons, who entered that room and killed his mother and
other family members. First Investigating Officer PW.85 has stated
in paragraphs 3, 72 at page 624, 644 of the paper book respectively
that informant did show him the spot where he concealed himself in
the room situate west of the courtyard where no occurrence took
place. Similar is the evidence of Second Investigating Officer P.W.91
in paragraph 88 at page 687 of the paper book. P.W. 41 in paragraph
12 at page 552 of the paper book has also claimed that he did show
the place where he concealed himself to the police officers. P.W.41
did not state in his fardbeyan or his case diary statement that he
concealed himself in the eastern room and that he identified 9
accused who entered that room by their voice. Aforesaid omission
made by the informant has also been proved by the Second
Investigating Officer P.W.91 in paragraph 121 of his evidence at
page 691, 692 of the paper book. In the aforesaid background, I
further proceed to consider the evidence of P.W.41 in paragraph 18,
page 553 of the paper book that after five minutes of the occurrence

101
in his house when the miscreants left, the informant came out of his
house using western exit and went to the roof of his uncle, Rooplal
Paswan and therefrom identified the 26 miscreants named in the
fardbeyan in the torchlight flashed by the miscreants while they
assembled in the adjoining vacant land after committing the
occurrence in the houses of other co-villagers. Aforesaid evidence of
the informant appears to be quite improbable as it is unlikely that
informant would leave the place where he concealed himself on the
risk of being seen by the assasilants, who were freely moving in the
village. The night of the occurrence was dark. Admittedly no source
of light was available with the informant and his aforesaid claim that
he identified the 26 miscreants from the roof of his uncle in the
torchlight flashed by the miscreants is required to be examined in the
light of the evidence of the other witnesses who also belatedly
claimed that they identified the assailants committing the occurrence
in their houses.
69. From the evidence of P.W. 1, Belwanti Devi,
P.W. 2 Sikandar Chaudhary, P.W. 4 Dudh Nath Chaudhary, P.W. 6
Mutur Rajbansi, P.W. 7 Subedar Ravidas, P.W. 9 Yugal Ravidas,
P.W.10 Mahurati Devi, P.W. 11 Bimlesh Kumar, P.W. 12 Munni
Rajbansi, P.W. 14 Sohrai Mahto, P.W. 16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansi, all
eye witnesses of the occurrence who lost their near and dear ones met

102
the police officials, P.Ws. 88, 85 on 2.12.1997, but their case diary
statement was not recorded on that day. P.W. 1 Belwanti Devi in
paragraph 8 of her evidence at page 416 of the paper book has
admitted that police came to the place of occurrence in the morning
which followed the occurrence and her statement was recorded on
2.12.1997, but the said statement is not available in the case diary
which fact is evident from the evidence of first Investigating Officer
P.W. 85 in paragraph 20 where he has admitted that P.W. 1 recorded
her statement on 4.12.1997. P.W. 2 Sikandar Chaudhary in paragraph
16 at page 422 of the paper book has stated that he and his brother
P.W. 4 Dudh Nath Chaudhary recorded their police statement in the
orchard in presence of 250 villagers in the morning which followed
the occurrence at 8 A.M. but the said statement is not available in the
case diary as according to the first Investigating Officer P.W. 85 in
paragraph 13 at page 635 of the paper book, the statement of P.Ws.
2, 4 was recorded at 8 A.M. on 3.12.1997. P.W. 6 Mutur Rajbansi in
paragraphs 13,14 at page 437 of the paper book has also admitted
that in the morning which followed the occurrence, administration
i.e. Collector, police, Minister etc. came to the place of occurrence
and he made his police statement but the authorities did not verify his
claim that he concealed himself over his thatched roof. The police
statement of P.W.6 recorded on 2.12.1997 referred to in paragraph 14

103
of his evidence is not available in the case diary, as according to the
first Investigating Officer P.W. 85 he was examined on 3.12.1997 at
8 A.M. P.W. 7 Subedar Ravidas in paragraph 15 of his evidence at
page 439 of the paper book has also accepted that police came to the
place of occurrence in the morning which followed the occurrence
and made enquiries from him. P.W.7, however, is not aware as to
when his police statement was recorded. From the evidence of first
Investigating Officer P.W. 85, paragraph 31 at page 637 of the paper
book, it is evident that P.W. 7 Subedar Ravidas recorded his
statement before the police on 8.12.1997. From the evidence of P.W.
9 Yugal Ravidas, paragraph 16 at page 446 of the paper book it is
evident that P.W. 9 also admitted the fact that police came to the
place of occurrence village in the morning which followed the
occurrence but denied the suggestion that he recorded his police
statement after 5-6 days of the occurrence. From the evidence of the
Investigating Officer P.W. 85 in paragraph 31 at page 637 of the
paper book, it is evident that P.W. 9 recorded his police statement on
8.12.1997 and not in the morning which followed the occurrence.
The two injured P.W. 10 Mahurati Devi and P.W. 11 Bimalesh
Kumar were sent for medical examination by the first Investigating
Officer P.W. 85 on 2.12.1997, but the two witnesses did not record
their case diary statement on 2.12.1997. From the evidence of second

104
Investigating Officer P.W. 91, Dy.S.P. Mirza Maksood Alam Beg in
paragraphs 29, 113 it appears that police statement of Bimalesh
Kumar was recorded by P.W. 91 on 22.12.1997 vide paragraph 94 of
the evidence of Second Investigating Officer P.W.91 and police
statement of P.W. 10 Mahurati Devi was recorded by Inspector Indu
Bhushan Prasad on instruction from second Investigating Officer
P.W. 91 on 18.12.1997. P.W. 10 did not name any of the miscreants
in her statement recorded before the police, which fact is confirmed
by the second Investigating Officer P.W. 91 in paragraph 114 of his
evidence. Perusal of paragraph 114, however, indicates that second
Investigating Officer P.W. 91 has used two negatives in the said
paragraph. In order to confirm the contents of the case diary
statement of P.W.10, I called upon learned counsel for the State to
produce the case diary statement of P.W.10 recorded by Inspector
Indu Bhushan Prasad, but such statement was not produced for
perusal. P.W.11 Bimlesh Kumar has stated in his evidence that he
identified the assailants when he came out side the room in the
courtyeard. His case diary statement is that he sustained injury inside
his room. Aforesaid contradiction has been proved by Second
Investigating Officer P.W.91 in paragraph 117 at page 691 of the
paper book. In paragraph 5, P.W.11 further admitted that he felt
frightened and covered himself with a cotton sheet. It further appears

105
that in paragraph 10 at page 451, P.W.11 claimed that he was shot by
Dharma Singh, which fact is not stated by him in the case diary
statement as proved by P.W.91 in paragraph 117. It also appears that
P.W.11 was examined by P.W.89, Dr. G.C. Jha who found that
P.W.11 suffered lacerated wound just below the right lower eye-lid,
which could not be caused by a direct firearm shot as claimed by the
witness. In view of the aforesaid infirmity in the evidence of P.W.11,
it is difficult to hold that he was in a position to identify the
miscreants. Similarly P.W. 10 Mahurati Devi and P.W.8 Ram Vinesh
Rajbansi are also not to be relied upon as P.W.10 recorded her case
diary statement on 8.12.1997. P.W.8 admitted in paragraph 6 of his
evidence that he permanently resides in his matrimonial village for
the last 4-5 years, which is at a distance of 5 kosh and that
information was given in his matrimonial village about the
occurrence on radio. In view of the aforesaid evidence of P.W.8, it is
quite evident that on the date, night of occurrence, P.W.8 was not
available in the place of occurrence village. Aforesaid fact was also
reiterated by his sister, P.W.10 before the police, but when she made
contrary statement in court, her attention was drawn towards her
police statement in paragraph 7, which has also been proved by
Second Investigating Officer P.W.91 in paragraph 116 where P.W.91
has categorically stated that in case diary statement, P.W.10 had

106
stated that during the night of occurrence, his brother P.W.8 was in
his matrimonial village as he is residing there for the last 4-5 years.
P.W. 12 Munni Rajbansi, son of Pappan Rajbansi in paragraph 12 of
his evidence at page 456, 457 of the paper book has accepted that
police came to the place of occurrence village in the morning which
followed the occurrence, saw the dead bodies but did not draw any
document. All his family members were killed during the occurrence
but he did not make any statement though he was present in the
village. First Investigating Officer P.W. 85 in paragraph 10 of his
evidence has stated that he recorded the statement of P.W.12 Munni
Rajbansi son of Pappan Rajbansi, Munni Devi wife of Kaulu
Rajbansi, Raj Ganesh Rajbansi son of Laxman Rajbansi, Yaduni
Rajbansi son of Deosharan Rajbansi on 2.12.1997 but such assertion
of Investigating Officer P.W. 85 is required to be considered in the
light of the evidence of P.W. 12 in paragraph 9 that he recorded his
police statement after 8-9 days of the occurrence as also in the light
of the fact that other three eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely,
Laxman Rajbansi, Yaduni Rajbansi son of Deosharan Rajbansi who
made their police statement before the first Investigating Officer
P.W.85 on 2.12.1997 at 6 P.M. vide paragraph 10 of the evidence of
P.W.85 have not been produced in court for recording their evidence.

107
P.W. 14 Sohrai Mahato in paragraph 3 of his evidence at page 462 of
the paper book has stated that police arrived in the village in the
morning following the occurrence between 8-10 A.M. when he was
weeping and his police statement was recorded after 6-7 days of the
occurrence. First Investigating Officer P.W. 85 in paragraph 20 of his
evidence has, however, stated that police statement of P.W.14 was
recorded by him on 4.12.1997. P.W. 16 Ram Ugarah Rajbansi in
paragraph 21 of his evidence at page 469 of the paper book has stated
that the police came to the place of occurrence village in the morning
following the occurrence at about 8-8.30 A.M. but he is not aware
who recorded his police statement on that day. In the same paragraph
P.W. 16 accepts that he did not inform the police that he has seen the
occurrence and his statement be recorded. Second Investigating
Officer P.W. 91 who took charge of the investigation on 10.12.1997
and made inspection of the place of occurrence on 11.12.1997
recorded the police statement of P.W.16 either on 11.12.1997 or any
time before 15.12.1997 when he recorded the statement of other
witnesses.
70. From consideration of the prosecution evidence
made above, it would appear that prosecution witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2,
4, 6, 7, 9, 10 to 12, 14, 16 were available in the village in the
morning which followed the occurrence on 2.12.1997 and also met

108
the first Investigating Officer P.W.85 as also P.W.88, the scribe of
the fardbeyan, who also prepared the inquest report, but the witnesses
did not furnish the name of the miscreants to either P.W.85 or
P.W.88 on 2.12.1997, but they are said to have named the miscreants
in their police statement recorded on 2,3.12.1997 and subsequent
dates. In this connection, it is interesting to note that on 2.12.1997,
first Investigating Officer P.W.85 recorded the police statement of 5
persons, namely, Ramchela Paswan son of Late Bhura Paswan,
Laxman Rajbansi, Munni Rajbansi son of Pappan Rajbansi, Yaduni
Rajbansi son of Deosharan Rajbansi. Amongst the aforesaid 5
persons, Ramchela Paswan son of Late Bhura Paswan, Munni Devi
wife of Kaulu Rajbansi, Raj Ganesh Rajbansi son of Laxman
Rajbansi, Yaduni Rajbansi son of Deosharan Rajbansi have not been
produced as witness in court. P.W.12 Munni Rajbansi has been
produced in court, but he has categorically stated in paragraph 9 of
his evidence at page 456 of the paper book that his police statement
was recorded after 8-10 days of the occurrence.
71. In view of the conduct of the prosecution not to
record the police statement of the eye-witnesses on 2.12.1997, there
appears substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants that had the witnesses been aware about the name of the

109
miscreants, their police statement ought to have been recorded on
2.12.1997. Failure to record the police statement of the eye-witnesses
on 2.12.1997 becomes relevant in the light of the unexplained delay
in reaching the FIR, Ext.21 to the court of CJM, Jehanabad on
4.12.1997. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel & another
Vrs. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 135. It
appears in the said case, three prosecution eye-witnesses of the
occurrence recorded their statement before the Investigating Officer
on the following day of the occurrence as Welji Harkha, P.W.3 was
examined at 8 AM, Pramila at 9.15 or 9.30 AM and Kuvarbai at 1
P.M. In the aforesaid background, Honble Supreme Court observed
in paragraph 15 that delay of a few hours simplicitor in recording the
statement of eye-witnesses may not by itself amount to a serious
infirmity in the prosecution case. Delay, however, may assume such
a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the
investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide
about the shape to be given to the case and the eye-witness to be
introduced. In the present case, failure to examine P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7,
9, 10 to 12, 14, 16 on 2,3.12.1997 coupled with the concomitant
circumstance of the prosecution failing to explain the delay in receipt
of the FIR, Ext.21 in the court of CJM, Jehanabad on 2,3.12.1997 is

110
indicative of the fact that names included in the fardbeyan were not
available with the investigator on 2,3.12.1997. If the investigator,
P.W.85 was aware about the identity of the miscreants on 2.12.1997
by 9.30 A.M. when the fardbeyan was recorded, there was no
difficulty for him to have recorded the statement of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 6,
7, 9, 10 to 12, 14, 16 on 2,3.12.1997, but such is not the case in hand
as on 2.12.1997 at 10.35 A.M., P.W.85 in the light of the contents of
the fardbeyan that the assailants have gone towards village Chhotaki
Kharaon across Sone river in Sahar area of Bhojpur district, spoke to
Officer-in-charge, Sahar P.S. and S.P. Bhojpur on wireless and
requested them to track the assailants who have escaped in their area
vide paragraph 36 of his evidence. After speaking to S.P. Bhojpur
and Officer-in-charge, Sahar P.S. on wireless, Investigating Officer
P.W.85 went for inspection of all the 14 place(s) of occurrence of the
case on 2.12.1997 at 11 A.M. including southern bank of the river
Sone and found on the southern bank three dead bodies of Chanarik
Chaudhary, his two sons Gorakh Chaudhary and Shiv Kailash
Chaudhary with sign of dragging the bodies till the river, footprints
of 100-150 men going across the river, P.W.85 then went to the
northern bank of the river Sone and found two more dead bodies of
Naresh Chaudhary and Ram Niwas Chaudhary both sons of Mahesh
Chaudhary near a hut where not only copious blood was found, but

111
also a boat anchored smeared with blood. In the light of the
footprints of 100-150 men found on the southern bank of the river
Sone going across the river, dead bodies, evidence of violence found
on both the banks of the river Sone, Investigating Officer P.W.85
concluded that most of the assailants belong to Sahar area of Bhojpur
district and have gone towards village Mathia, Chhotaki Kharaon,
Barki Kharaon, Lodipur and then again contacted Officer-in-charge,
Sahar P.S. at 4.15 P.M. on 2.12.1997 vide paragraph 6 of his
evidence and requested him to track the assailants who went towards
village Mathia, Chhotaki Kharaon, Barki Kharaon, Lodipur after
crossing the river Sone. From perusal of the aforesaid evidence of
first Investigating Officer P.W.85 in paragraphs 36 and 6 of his
evidence, it is evident that right from the time fardbeyan was
recorded, he was of the view that the assailants belong to Sahar area
of Bhojpur district and to fix their identity, apprehend them P.W.85
contacted S.P. Bhojpur and Officer-in-charge, Sahar P.S. through
wireless at 10.35 A.M. on 2.12.1997. Aforesaid opinion of P.W.85
was further reiterated when he visited the 14
th
place of occurrence on
the bank of the river Sone and found footprints of 100-150 men
going across the river together with dead bodies and evidence of
violence on both the banks of the river Sone and then again contacted
Officer-in-charge, Sahar P.S. at 4.15 P.M. on 2.12.1997 and repeated

112
the request to track the assailants in village Mathia, Chhotaki
Kharaon, Barki Kharaon, Lodipur of Sahar P.S. After having made
the request on 2.12.1997 at 10.35 A.M. and 4.15 P.M., P.W. 85 did
not take any further steps to track the assailants who having crossed
the river Sone had gone towards different villages of Sahar P.S.
within Bhojpur district perhaps for the reason that the Officer-in-
charge, Sahar P.S. and S.P. Bhojpur could not succeed in
ascertaining the identity of the assasilants who had crossed the river
Sone and had gone towards Sahar area. Investigating Officer P.W.85,
however, in order to avoid further delay in dispatch, receipt of the
FIR in court perhaps thought appropriate that the FIR with 26 names
of the villagers of Bathe, Kamta and Chanda be dispatched even
belatedly so that it may reach the court at least on 4.12.1997. In this
connection, evidence of P.W.85, paragraph 5 is relevant where he has
admitted that he received information about institution of the FIR on
2.12.1997 at 4.05 P.M., yet the same did not reach the court of CJM,
Jehanabad on 2,3.12.1997 though distance between Mehandia P.S.
and Jehanabad Civil Court is about 50 Kms. and the two are
connected by motarable road over which vehicular traffic is always
available, which fact is also admitted by the Investigating Officer
P.W. 85 in paragraph 45 of his evidence.
72. There is yet another circumstance, which is

113
indicative of the fact that the prosecution had no clue about the
identity of the miscreants until 3.12.1997, 5 P.M. as by then the
investigation had not begun as per the evidence of P.W.87 Sub-
Inspector Azhar Hussain, paragraph 7, who came to the place of
occurrence along with P.W.85 in the morning of 2.12.1997, as
according to P.W.87 the investigation of the case began only after
arrival of the Chief Minister on 3.12.1997 at 5 P.M. From evidence
of P.W.85, paragraph 14, it would appear that first arrest in the case
of Accused No.3 Ashok Singh was made on 3.12.1997 at 5.25 P.M.
and double barrel gun recovered from the house of Accused No.4
Gopal Singh on the same day i.e. 3.12.1997 at about 6.15 P.M. In
case prosecution had information about the identity of the accused on
2.12.1997, they could have very well arrested Accused No.3 Ashok
Singh and recovered gun from the house of Accused No.4 Gopal
Singh on 2.12.1997 itself when P.W.85 along with police force
raided the house of the fardbeyan named accused of village Bathe on
2.12.1997 at 9 P.M. It appears quite ridiculous that Accused No.3
Ashok Singh was not available at his residence on 2.12.1997 at 9
P.M. and the gun was also not seized from the house of Accused
No.4 Gopal Singh when the same was raided on 2.12.1997 at 9 P.M.,
but became available for arrest and seizure on 3.12.1997 at 5.25 P.M.
Besides the gun seized by the Investigating Officer from the house of

114
Accused No. 4 Gopal Singh on 3.12.1997 at 6.15 P.M. and sent to
the Malkhana of the Police Station for safe custody was never sent
for test by the expert to confirm whether the same was used in the
occurrence. Similarly Accused No.2 Surendra Singh son of Mahadeo
Singh, who at the relevant time served as a Teacher in the
Government school in village Kamta and Accused No.5 Baleshwar
Singh were arrested on 6.12.1997 from the school. Similarly Accused
No. 18 Shiv Mohan Sharma, Accused No. 22 Navin Kumar, Accused
No.24 Sunil Kumar and Accused No. 26 Surendra Singh were
arrested in village Chanda on 7.12.1997. Accused No.8 Nawal Singh,
Accused No. 16 Ram Kewal Sharma, Accused No. 19 Ashok
Sharma, Accused No. 20 Babloo Sharma and Accused No. 21
Mithilesh Sharma surrendered on 8.12.1997. Accused No. 10 Nandu
Singh and Accused No. 11 Shatrughan Singh surrendered on
10.12.1997. Accused No. 12 Nand Singh, Accused No. 15
Chandeshwar Singh surrendered on 12.12.1997. Accused No. 7
Bijendra Singh surrendered on 12.1.1998. Accused No. 4 Gopal
Sharan Singh, Accused No. 6 Dwarika Singh, Accused No. 13
Pramod Kumar Singh son of Gopal Sharan Singh and Accused No.
14 Dharichhan Singh surrendered on 17.1.1998.
73. It would thus appear that once the appellants learnt
about their implication in the case after arrest of Accused No.3

115
Ashok Singh and seizure of gun from the house of Accused No. 4
Gopal Singh on 3.12.1997, further arrest of Accused No. 2 Surendra
Singh and Accused No. 5 Baleshwar Singh from Govt. school on
6.12.1997 and Accused No. 18 Shiv Mohan Sharma, Accused No. 22
Navin Kumar, Accused No.24 Sunil Kumar, Accused No. 26
Surendra Singh on 7.12.1997, the other accused persons themselves
surrendered in the court below. It also appears that Investigating
Officer having secured the arrest, surrender of the fardbeyan named
accused, stopped further investigation to track the accused persons
who crossed river Sone and went towards Sahar area in village
Mathia, Chhotaki Kharaon, Barki Kharaon, Lodipur. Aforesaid
conduct of the Investigating Officer is indicative of the fact that he
was absolutely clueless about the identity of the assailants who
having perpetrated heinous crime causing death of 58 innocent
persons crossed the river Sone and went towards Sahar area. There
was absolutely no reason for the Investigating Officer not to pursue
the lead, evidence found on both the banks of the river Sone to track
the assailants who crossed the river Sone and went towards Sahar
area with the help of Officer-in-charge, Sahar P.S. and S.P. Bhojpur
with whom he was already in contact as is evident from his own
evidence in paragraphs 36, 6. It appears the effort to track the
assailants in Sahar area met dead end, the first Investigating Officer

116
P.W.85 thought it appropriate to implicate these appellants residents
of place of occurrence village Bathe, adjoining village Kamta and
Chanda by antedating the fardbeyan, as there is no viable explanation
for the delayed receipt of the FIR in Jehanabad court on 4.12.1997.
74. Higher police authorities not being satisfied with
the investigation conducted by first Investigating Officer P.W.85,
DIG, CID, Patna instructed P.W.85 under wireless message No.
3830, bearing Memo No. 3829/C dated 09.12.1997 to hand over
investigation of the case to Sri Mirza Maksood Alam Beg, Dy.S.P.,
CID, Patna who took over the investigation of the case on
10.12.1997, but could not salvage the situation as by 10.12.1997 the
footprints found on the southern bank, evidence of violence found on
both the banks of the river Sone disappeared and the assailants who
escaped in Sahar area of Bhojpur District could not be brought to
justice. It is thus evident that even after intervention of the Dy.S.P.,
CID, Patna to investigate the case, assailants could not be tracked
and the FIR named accused persons of place of occurrence village
Laxmanpur Bathe and two adjoining villages, Kamta and Chanda
were only sent up for trial and have been convicted in the light of the
evidence of the eye-witnesses, which is hardly reliable to prove their
guilt in the light of discussion about the merit of their evidence
discussed in paragraphs 67 to 71.

117
75. The motive suggested by the prosecution i.e. wage
dispute between the land-holders and the agricultural labourers
employed to conduct various agricultural operations in the field of
the land-holders vide paragraph 3, 7 of the evidence of P.W.5, 41
respectively, declaration of ceiling surplus land of Suryaman
Upadhyay by Sangram Samiti which was purchased by the members
of Bhumihar, Mahto and Yadav caste, diktat issued by the Sangram
Samiti to the vendee of the land not to harvest the standing crop on
the vended land purchased from the daughters of Suryaman
Upadhyay vide paragraph 3 of the evidence of Chawkidar Ramanand
Yadav P.W.15 also does not connect the appellants with the
occurrence, as hardly any concrete evidence indicating labour dispute
between the appellants and the deceased or the witnesses including
purchase of lands of Suryaman Upadhyay by these appellants has
been placed on record and thereby it is absolutely farfetched to
connect the appellants with the motive suggested by the prosecution.
76. In the light of discussion made in paragraphs 65
to 75, I am of the view that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable,
appellants deserve grant of benefit of doubt, which is, accordingly,
granted. Reference is answered in negative. The impugned
judgment/order dated 07.04.2010 passed by 1
st
Additional Sessions
Judge, Patna in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1999 is set aside and the

118
appeals are allowed.
77. Appellants Nandu Singh, Shatrughan Singh,
Dharichhan Singh, Nand Singh, Gopal Sharan Singh, Balram Singh,
Pramod Kumar Singh son of Gopal Sharan Singh, Dwarika Singh,
Ram Kewal Sharma, Nawal Singh, Ashok Singh, Bijendra Singh,
Surendra Singh son of Mahadeo Singh and Baleshwar Singh are in
jail custody, they are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted
in any other case. Appellants Ravindra Singh, Mithilesh Sharma,
Babloo Sharma, Pramod Singh @ Pramod Kr. Singh son of Late
Sankh Singh, Ashok Sharma, Surendra Singh son of Sri Ram Pyar
Singh, Navin Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Chandeshwar Singh are on
bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail
bond.
78. Before parting with this judgment, placing reliance
on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ankush
Shivaji Gaikwad Vrs. State of Maharastra, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6287
of 2011 decided on 03.05.2013, (2013) 6 SCC 770, I would like to
observe that there being no dispute about the factum of death, injury
having been caused to 58, 4 members of the weaker sections of the
society in village Laxmanpur Bathe in the night of 01.12.1997, the
State is obliged to pay compensation to the next of kin of the 58
deceased and 4 injured from its fund. The amount of compensation is

119
to be calculated by the trial court taking into account the age, income
of the deceased and the injured in the light of the provisions of
Section 163-A and Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. In absence of any documentary proof of any of the victim, trial
court will calculate the income of the victim on the basis of minimum
wage payable on the date of occurrence. After calculating the amount
of compensation, appropriate order for payment of compensation
shall be passed by the trial court within twelve weeks of the receipt
of this judgment directing the Collector, Arwal to make payment to
the next of the kin of the 58 deceased and 4 injured, of course after
adjusting ex gratia amount already paid to the next of the kin of the
58 deceased and the 4 injured. Payment in compliance of this
judgment be made to the concerned by the Collector, Arwal within
four weeks from the date of receipt of the order for payment of
compensation from the trial court.

AFR
Arjun/PKP
(V.N. Sinha, J)

Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. I agree.

(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)

Laxmanpur Bathe Patna High Court Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laxmanpur Bathe Patna High Court Judgement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laxmanpur Bathe Patna High Court Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Death Reference No.5 of 2010

You might also like