DISTRICT : PATNA IN THE COURT OF 1ST ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, PATNA. PRESENT : VIJAI PRAKASH MISHRA. 1st Addl.

Sessions Judge, Patna. Dated, Patna, the 7th day of April, 2010. Sessions case No. 2 of 1999 (Arising out of Mehandia P.S. Case No. 126/97 U/s 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 364, and 302 I.P.C. as well as 27 Arms Act (Lakshmanpur Bathe Messacre) and against the commitment order dated 23.12.1998 passed by C.J.M., Jehanabad)

S T A T E (Through Binod Paswan Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Informant)

Girija Singh, S/o Late Patiram Singh, aged about 63 years. Surendra Singh, S/o Mahadeo Singh, aged about 63 years. Ashok Singh, S/o Late Indradeo Singh, aged about 46 years. Gopal Sharan Singh, s/o Late Awadhesh Singh, aged about 61 years. Baleshwar Singh, S/o Parsuram Singh, aged about 80 years. Dwarika Singh, S/o Late Ram Naresh Singh, aged about 58 years. Bijendra Singh, S/o Late Dudhyanath Singh, aged about 55 years. Nawal Singh, S/o Late Ram Bhajan Singh, aged about 62 years. Balram Singh, S/o Late Awadhesh Singh, aged about 35 years.

10. Nandu Singh, S/o Baleshwar, aged about 50 years. 11. Shatrughan Singh, S/o Ram Eqbal Sharma, aged about 41 years. 12. Nand Singh, S/o Kameshwar Sigh, aged about 55 years. 13. Pramod Kumar Singh, S/o Gopal Sharan, aged 30 years. 14. Dharichan Singh, S/o Late Binod Pd. Singh, aged about 32 yeas. 15. Chandeshwar Singh, S/o Kameshwar Singh, aged about 40 years. 16. Kewal @ Ram Kawal Sharma, S/o Late Shita Sharma, aged about 60 yrs. 17. Dharma Singh, S/o Late Shiv Singh, aged about 44 years. 18. Shiv Mohan sharma, S/o Late Mangal Singh, aged about 61 years. 19. Ashok Sharma, S/o Late Ram Naresh Sharma, aged about 40 years.

20. Dabloo Sharma, S/o Dwarika Sharma, aged about 34 years. 21. Mithilesh Sharma, S/o Sri Vijay Sharma, aged about 38 years. 22. Navin Kumar, S/o Lallan Prasad, aged about 45 years. 23. Ravindra Singh, S/o Rajeshwar Singh, aged about 38 years. 24. Sunil Kumar, S/o Kamal Nayan Sharma, aged about 35 years. 25. Pramod Singh, S/o Late Sankh Singh, aged about 45 years. 26. Surendra Singh, S/o Ram Pyar Singh, aged about 58 years. 27. Awani Bhushan Kumar, S/o Rameshwar Pandey aged about 32 years. 28. Ram Eqbal Sharma, S/o Late Ram Uttim Sharma, aged about 65 years. 29. Dharikshan Choudhary, S/o Late Jeev Narain Choudhary, aged about 78 years. 30. Butan Choudhary, alias Harendra Choudhary, S/o Late Dineshwar Choudhary, aged about 30 years. 31. Chandra Shekhar Choudhary, S/o Late Shiv Pujan Choudhary, aged about 38 years. 32. Arvind Kumar, S/o Bed Narain Singh, aged about 35 yeas. 33. Ramesh Singh, S/o Late Kapildeo Singh, aged about 39 years. 34. Sri Niwash Pandey, S/o Nand Kishore Pandey, aged about 30 years. 35. Ajay Singh, S/o Late Ram Achhat Singh, aged about 45 years. 36. Dudul Singh, S/o Bhagwan Singh, aged about 60 years. 37. Bhagelu Singh, S/o Late Radha Singh, aged about 60 years. 38. Munshi Singh, S/o Yadunandan Singh, aged about 62 years. 39. Ranjeet Singh, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh, aged about 48 years. 40. Saroj Rai, S/o Ram Dinesh Rai, aged about 29 years. 41. Bhola Rai, S/o Takluraj Rai, aged about 45 years. 42. Sidhyanath Rai, S/o Chandrama Rai, aged about 48 years. 43. Suresh Rai, S/o Ram Janam Rai, aged about 45 years. 44. Jata Singh, S/o Late Gupteshwar Singh, aged about 72 years. 45. Hridaya Singh, S/o Late Bengali Singh, aged about 70 years. ... Accused Persons.

For the Prosecution:-Sri Rana Pratap Singh, Senior Advocate Sri Chitranjan Singh, Senior Advocate,

Sri Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Addl. P.P. Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Smt. Sarika Kumari, Sri Anup Kumar Sinha Sri Sumant Singh Sri Anand Prasad Singh. For the defence:2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. Sri Radhe Shyam, Advocate,

Sri Balmiki Prasad Sinha, Advocate, Sri Vidyanand Kumar, Advocate, Sri Sanjay Dilip Kumar, Advocate, Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate, Sri Vishnu Dhar Pandey, Advocate, Sri Umesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, Sri Sunil Kumar-II, Advocate.

J 1.

Out of aforesaid 45 accused persons 44 accused persons, namely

Ashok Singh @ Ashok Sharma, Girija Singh, Navin Kumar, Hirday Singh, Shiv Mohan Sharma, Pramod Kumar Singh, Baleshwar Sharma, Munshi Singh, Rabindra Singh, Surendra Singh S/o Mahabir Singh, Nandu Singh, Gopal Sharan Singh, Surendra Singh S/o Ram Pyar Singh, Sunil Kumar, Dharma Singh, Shatrughan Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Babloo Sharma, Mithilesh Sharma, Saroj Singh, Suresh Singh, Ashok Singh, Kamal Singh, Dharikesh Singh, Dwarika Singh, Anjali Singh, Sidhnath Rai, Vijendra Singh, Bhagendra Singh @ Bhagela @ Bhagelu Singh, Chandeshwar Singh, Dudul Singh, Nand Singh, Nawal Singh, Rameqbal Singh alias Ram Kamal Singh, Bhola Rai, Ajay Singh, Avani Bhushan Kumar, Bali Ram Singh, Pramod Singh, Butan Choudhary alias Harendra Choudhary, Dharikesh Choudhary, Ramesh Singh, Arvind Kumar and Shiv Niwas Pandey stands jointly charged on 23.12.2008 for having committed the offences U/s 147, 148, 149/302, 460, 307/149, 120B/302

Arms Act and 27 Arms Act as well as U/s 3(2)(v) of SC/S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. They have also been charged jointly U/s 120B read with sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 460 I.P.C., 27 Arms Act and Sections 3(2)(v) of Harijan Act. Two accused, namely Jata Singh and Chandra Shekhar Choudhay @ Shekhar Choudhary were jointly charged on 28.01.2010 for having committed the offences u/s 147, 148, 149/302, 460, 307/149, 120B, 302 I.P.C. and 27 Arms and Act as well U/s 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. All the aforesaid 46 accused persons pleaded not guilty and consequently been tried by the Court. 2. Chela The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Binod Kumar Paswan S/o Ram Paswan of village Lakshmanpur Bathe, P.S. Mehandia, District

Jehanabad, now Arwal, hereinafter called as Informant gave/lodged a fardbeyan before the Officer-in-charge of Mehandia Police Station Sri Akhilendra Kumar Singh on 02.12.1997 at village Lakshmanpur Bathe at 9.30 A.M. in the morning alleging interalia.: that on the previous night i.e. in the night intervening between 1/2nd December, 1997, the informant along with his family members were sleeping after dinner at about 10.30 P.M. that all of a sudden the informant was awakened on hearing the sound of firing and as soon as he came out from his room, saw 10 to 15 persons, armed with rifle, entered into his house and started indiscriminate firing as a result of which seven(7) persons of his family died on spot. that the informant did not receive any injury as he managed to put himself behind the Kothi (an earthen structure to store the grainary) that the informant went to the roof of his house and saw a mob of 150 persons, who appeared to be the Members of Ranvir Sena and identified in the flash of torch light. that he informant claims to identify as many as 26 persons and they are alleged to be:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Phanish Kumar Singh, S/o Birendra Singh Ashok singh, S/o Indradeo Singh. Anjani Singh, S/o Dwarika Singh. Pramod Kumar Singh, S/o Gopal Singh. Gopal Singh, S/o Awadhesh Singh. Baliram Singh, S/o Awadhesh Singh. Dharikshan Singh, S/o Phulan Singh. Surendra Singh, S/o Baliram Singh. Dwarika Singh, S/o Bodha Singh. Nand Singh, S/o Late Kameshwar Singh. Chandeshwar Singh, S/o Late Mameshwar Singh. Kewal Singh, S/o Shital Singh. Nawal Singh, S/o Bhagaru Singh. Bhukhan Singh, S/o Ram Dhyan Singh. Giraja Singh, S/o Late Patiram Singh. Nandu Singh, S/o Baleshwar Singh. Baleshwar Singh, S/o Pakhabaran Singh. Bijendra Singh, S/o Siddhnath Singh. Satrudhan Singh, S/o Ram Ekbal Singh All of village Laxamnpur Bathe, P.S. Mehandia, District

Jehanabad. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Dharma Singh, S/o Shiv Sharma. Ashok Sharma, S/o Naresh Sharma. Shiv Mohan Sharma, S/o Mangal Sharma. Surendra Singh, S/o Rampyaree Singh. Sudarshan Sharma, S/o Triveni Sharma. Babaloo Sharma, S/o Dwarika Sharma. Mithilesh Sharma, S/o Bijoy Sharma. All of village Kamta, P.S. Mehandia, District-Jehanabad

that while retreating the miscreant again raised slogan Ranveer Sena Ki Jai and went towards north to village Chataki Kharoon after crossing Sone river, that after half an hour informant went to his neighbour after hearing the weeping and crying sound first went to the house of Shiv Bachan Ram and saw Shiv Bachan Ram Samundri Devi W/o Shiv Bachan Ram Raj Kumar Ram Jayant Kumar Chhatiya Devi who had received bullet injury and lying dead. that thereafter went to the house of Rajbanshi and saw Prabhawati Devi, W/o Ganesh Rajbans Jai Murti Devi, W/o Laxaman Rajbans Kanti Devi, W/o Surendra Rajbans were found dead. that thereafter he went to the house of Dabesh Rajbansi and saw: Dabesh Rajbanshi Sohar Rajbanshi Kamlesh Rajbanshi Kalawati. W/o Dabesh Rajbanshi, Malti Devi, W/o Kamalesh Rajbanshi who were found dead. that thereafter went to the house of Laxman Rajbanshi and saw: Etawar Devi, W/o Laxaman Rajbanshi

Ramkali Devi, W/o Munni Rajbanshi Chhote Lal Rajbanshi Domani, W/o Ram Sudhir Rajbanshi Sunita Kumari, D/o Ram Sudhir Rajbanshi were found dead. that thereafter went to the house of Yaduni Rajbanshi and saw: Rajmaniya Devi, W/o Yaduni Rajbanshi Phool Kumari Devi, W/o Bindeshwar Rajbanshi Chaniya, D/o Bindeshwar Raj Kumari, W/o Mutur Rajbanshi Bishwanath Rajbanshi Saroj Kumari, D/o Mutur Rajbanshi were found dead. that thereafter moving around the village saw and found Garib Chandra Choudhary Shanichar Choudhary Mina Devi, W/o Sikander Choudhary Anita, D/o Sikandar Choudhary Sabita Kumari Mahendra Choudhary Dhan Rajiya Devi, W/o Mahendra Om Nath Choudhary Nanhak Choudhary Munni Devi, W/o Moti Choudhary Jagatar Chodhary Mina Devi, W/o Mahendra Choudhary Arvind Sunita Kumari Sita Kumari

Chhuni Choudhary Manmatia Devi, W/o Chhuni Choudhary Ram Police Mahto Basanti Devi, W/o Ram Polish Mahto Taregni Devi, W/o Nagmani Mahto Bijendra Thakur were found dead due to gun shot injury. that in the same night he along with other co-cillagers made alarm but due to fear no body turned up. that in the morning it was learnt that near the bank of Sone river, at northern side which is under Sahar police station jurisdiction the neck of five persons were chopped off by the miscreants. that some persons are injured and sent for the treatment and some have been kidnapped. that it was claimed that Members of Ranveer Sena for establishing his supremacy and existence in the village, attacked and murdered several persons either from firing or chopping off of the neck. 3. On the basis of the fard-beyan of the informant signed by witness

Shyam Bihari Paswan (brother-in-law of Binod Paswan) Mehandia P.S. Case No. 126 of 1997 dated 02.12.1997 u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 364, 302 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act was registered but subsequently section 3(1)(ii) of S.C./S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act was added was registered. Sri Shreedhar Mandal, S.D.P.O. (P.W. 85) has already taken up the investigation. (Ext-2, 13, 19 and 20 the corresponding Exhibit numbers). 4. I.O Sri Shreedhar Mandal, has taken up the investigation on the spot on

02.12.1997 at 10 A.M. by the oral order of S.P., Jehanabad. 5. During the course of investigation Sri Shreedhar Mandal, S.D.P.O., has

directed the Officer-in-charge of Mehandia Police Station, who was present at the spot, to prepare Enquest reports and seizure list of seized articles found

on different spot and in that continuation the I.O. has taken further statement of informant Binod Paswan (P.W. 41) and immediately sent the injured Mahesh Rajbanshi, Bimlesh Rajbanshi, Ramanuj Rajbanshi, and Muharti Devi by the respective requisitions i.e. Ext.3, 3/1, 3/2 and 3/3 to the Government Hospital, Arwal for treatment. As the deceased were 58 in numbers, as such, that I.O. requested the District Magistrate, Jehanabad to notify the village Laxmanpur Bathe (the place of occurrence) as mortuary to conduct the postmortem of the deceased. As such the doctors were conducted the Post mortem of the deceased at village Laxmanpur Bathe. 6. Sri Shreedhar Mandal is the first police officer, who inspected/visited the

spot as the investigating officer one by one from 11 A.M. and onwards on 02.12.1997 after entering into the house has given full description and the situation at a glance for appreciating the heinousness of the scene. 7. As stated above Sri Shreedhar Mandal was examined on behalf of the

prosecution as P.W.85 and he has given full description of the place of occurrence which is 14 in numbers in detail and for appreciating the evidences of different witnesses. I would like to mention these place of occurrence at one place in the following paraghps: The place of occurrence, in shortly, be noted as P.O. PLACE OF OCCURRENCE No.1 P.W.85 in his evidence at para 3d has stated that it is the house of Binod Paswan, who is the informant in which he found the following dead bodies inside the house: Raj Raniya Devi, the mother of the informant, Post Mortem was conducted by Dr. Mukesh Kumar (P.W.22) Ext.1/38, Enquest report is Rita Devi, Sister of informant, P.M. Report is Ext. report is Ext. Kabutari Devi, P.M. Report is Ext. Amar Paswan Umar Paswan and Enquest report is Ext. and Enquest

Anoj Paswan Sohan Paswan He has also mentioned that just side of the dead body of Sohan Paswan empty cartridges (Ext.32) and mark of violence were found P.O. No.-2 P.W.85 in paragraph 3 it is the house of Sohan Rajbanshi just 30 south to the house of the informant and found the dead body of:1. Sohan Rajbanshi S/o Pakelu Rajbanshi, Enquest report is Ext. 18/10 and P.M. Report is Ext. 2. Kamalesh Rajbanshi S/o Sohar Rajbanshi, Enquest report is Ext. 18/10 and P.M. Report is Ext. 3. Devesh Rajbanshi S/o Sohar Rajbanshi, Enquest report is Ext. 18/9 and P.M. Report is Ext. 4. 5. Kalawati Devi, W/o Devesh Rajbanshi, Enquest report is Ext. 18/4 Malati Devi, W/o Kamalesh Rajbanshi, the Enquest report is Ext. and P.M. Report is Ext. 1/39 issued By P.W.22 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Singh. 18/7 and P.M. Report is Ext. 1/40. 8 M.M. empty cartridge four in number were found (Ext. 32). P.O. No.-3 P.W.85 at paragraph 3x it is the house of Ram Ashray Paswan, S/o Ganeshi Paswan, western side of the Dalan where the dead body of Bijendra Thakur S/o Madhusudan Thakur of village Kamta was found and his P.M. report is Ext. 1/14 conducted by Dr. Mukesh Kumar Singh (P.W.22) and Enquest report is Ext. 18. It is mentioned that sign of bullet hole in the Chowki and also the mark of violence of firing was found on the wall. P.O. No.-4 P.W.85 in paragraph-3 it is the house of deceased Etawariya Devi W/o Late Laxaman Rajbanshi whose dead body was found lying on a cot. Her P.M.

report is Ext.1/42 conducted by Dr. Mukesh Kumar Singh (P.W.22) and found the gun shot injury. P.O.No.-5 P.W. 85 in paragraph 3 it is the southern side of house of Etawariya Devi, which is the house of Munni Rajbanshi, the door was broken and the dead body of Roopkala Devi, W/o Munni Rajbanshi was found on Pual. Her P.M. Report is Ext. 1/44 conducted by Dr. Mukesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 22) and Enquest report is Ext. Domani Devi W/o Ram Sudin Rajbanshi was found dead. Her P.M. Report is Ext. 1/43 conducted by Dr. Mukesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 22) and Enquest report is Ext. Sheela Devi aged about 18 years and daughter of Munni Rajbanshi whose P.M. Report is Ext. 1/44 conducted by Dr. Mukesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 22) and Enquest report is Ext. Sunita Kumari aged about 8 years daughter of Ram Sudin Rajbanshi whose P.M. Report is Ext. 1/46 conducted by Dr. Mukesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 22) and Enquest report is Ext. Chhote Lal, S/o Sudin Rajbanshi whose P.M. report is Ext. 1/47 conducted by Dr. Mukesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 22) and Enquest report is Ext. In the house three empty cartridges were found. The seizure list is Ext.34.

P.O. No. 6 P.W.85 in his evidence at paragraph-3p has disclosed that this was the house of Yaduni Rajbanshi where six deceased were found dead and they are: i. Ful Kumari whose Enquest report is Ext.26/2 and P.M. Report is

Ext. 1/48 conducted by Dr. Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 23). ii. Chinaya Devi aged about 18 years, whose P.M. report is Ext.1/49

conducted by Dr. Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 23) and Enquest report is Ext.26/1.

iii.

Rajmania Devi whose Enquest report is Ext. 26 whose dead body

was found in sitting position and P.M. report is Ext. conducted by Dr. iv. Dhanukuer Devi whose Enquest report is Ext. 26/3 and P.M.

report is Ext. 1/50 conducted by Dr. Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 23). v. Saroj Kumari aged about 18 years whose Enquest report is Ext.

26/5 and P.M. report is Ext. 1/51 conducted by Dr. Rakesh Kumar (P.W.23). vi. 23). In this house one Mahesh Rajbanshi was injured and he was examined as P.W. 17. Vishwanath Ravidas aged about 9 years, whose Enquest report is

Ext. 26/4 and P.M. Report is Ext. 1/51 conducted by Dr. Rakesh Kumar (P.W.

P.O. No. 7 Witness Sri Sridhar Mandal (P.W.85) the I.O. in his examination in chief at paragraph 3N has disclosed that it was the house of Garib Chandra Choudhary and found the following dead bodies in his house: i. Garib Chandra Choudhary whose Enquest report is Ext. 26/6 and

P.M. Report is Ext. 1/53 conducted by Dr. Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 23). ii. Sanichary Devi whose Enquest report is Ext. 26/7 and P.M. Report

is Ext. 1/54 conducted by Dr. Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 23). iii. Sona Devi whose Enquest report is Ext. 26/8 and P.M. Report is

Ext. 1/55 conducted by Dr. Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 23). iv. Sarita Kumari aged about 5 years D/o Sikandar Choudhary whose

Enquest report is Ext. 26/10 and P.M. report is Ext. 26/10 conducted by Dr. Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 23). v. Anita Kumari aged about 3 years and daughter of said Sikandar

Choudhary whose Enquest report is Ext. 26/9 and P.M. report is Ext. 1/56 issued by Dr. Rakesh Kumar (P.W. 23).

P.O. No. 8 P.W.85 Sri SridharMandal in his evidence at paragraph-3t has disclosed that this place of occurrence is the house of Mahendra Choudhary S/o Garib Chandra Choudhary and found the following dead bodies lying in the house:i. Mahendra Choudhary S/o Garib Chandra Choudhary, whose

Enquest report is Ext. 18/6 and P.M. report is Ext. 1/11 conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar (P.W. 20). ii. (P.W. 20). iii. 20). iv. Nanhak Choudhary whose Enquest report is Ext. 18/2 and P.M. Om Nath Choudhary aged about 8 years whose Enquest report is Dhanarajiya Devi W/o Mahendra Choudhary, whose Enquest

report is Ext.18/5 and P.M. report is Ext. 1/10 conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar

Ext. 18/3 and P.M. report is Ext. 1/9 conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar (P.W.

Report is Ext. 1/8 conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar (P.W. 20). The I.O. has also found two empty cartridges of MM Ext. 32.

P.O. No. 9 P.W. 85 Sri Shreedhar Mandal in his evidence at paragraph 3> mentioned that this place of occurrence is the house of one Mahendra Choudhary S/o Moti Choudhary and found six dead bodies in his house as follows:i. Mina Devi whose Enquest report is Ext. 26/7 and P.M. Report is

Ext. 1/14 conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar (P.W. 20). ii. Arbind Choudhary whose Enquest report is Ext. 27/3 and P.M.

Report is Ext. 1/15 conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar (P.W. 20).

iii.

Munni Devi whose Enquest report is Ext. 27/2 and P.M. Report is

Ext. 1/12 conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar (P.W. 20). iv. Sita Kumari, who is the sister of informant, and daughter of

Kapoor Chandra of village Ojha Bigha, whose Enquest report is Ext. 27/5 and P.M. report is Ext. 1/17 conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar (P.W. 20). v. Jagat Choudhary whose Enquest report is Ext. 27/1 and P.M.

report is Ext. 1/13 conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar (P.W. 20). vi. Sumitra aged about 2 years, daughter of Mahendra Choudhary,

whose Enquest report is Ext. 27/4 and P.M. report is Ext. 27/4 conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar (P.W. 20).

P.O. No. 10 P.W. 85 Sri Shreedhar Mandal in his evidence at paragraph-3 has disclosed that this place of occurrence is the house of Chunni Choudhary and found the dead body of Chunni Choudhary and Manmatiya Devi. The Enquest report of Chunni Choudhary is Ext. 25 and P.M. report is Ext. 1/29 conducted by Dr. Mithilesh Kumar (P.W.21). As regards Manmatiya Devi is concerned her Enquest report is Ext.-25/1 and P.M. report is Ext.-1/30 conducted by Dr. Mithilesh Kumar (P.W. 21).

P.O. No. 11 As per P.W.85 Sri Shreedhar Mandal at Para-3r it is the house of Ram Polish Mahto S/o Sohrai Mahto in which the doors were broken and found three dead bodies which are as follows:i. Ram Polish Mahto whose Enquest report is Ext.22/7 and P.M.

Report is Ext. 1/28 conducted by Dr. Mithilesh Kumar (P.W. 21). ii. 21). Basanti Devi W/o Ram Polish Mahto, whose Enquest report is Ext.

22/8 and P.M. Report is Ext. 1/31 conducted by Dr. Mithilesh Kumar (P.W.

iii.

Taregani D/o Sohan Mahto, whose Enquest report is Ext. 22/9 and

P.M. report is Ext. 1/32 conducted by Dr. Mithilesh Kumar (P.W. 21). Empty cartridges were also recovered from the house of the said place of occurrence and seizure was made and seizure list was prepared as Ext.32.

P.O. No. 12 The I.O. Sri Shreedhar Mandal has disclosed in his evidence as P.W. 85 at paragraph 3Fk that it was the house of Surendra Rajbansh S/o Laxaman Rajbansh and found three dead bodies in the said house which are as following :i. Jai Murati Devi, whose dead body was found in sliding position

who is wife of Lakshman Rajbansh and her Enquest report is Ext. 28/6 and P.M. report is Ext. 1/1 conducted by Dr. Sri Nath Prasad (P.W. 19). ii. Malati Devi, who is the wife of Surendra Rajbansh and whose dead

body was found sliding position and her Enquest report is Ext. 28/7 and P.M. report is Ext. 1 conducted by Dr. Sri Nath Prasad (P.W. 19). iii. 19). The I.O. has also found 9 MM empty cartridges from the house which was seized and seizure list was prepared. Prabhawati Devi W/o Ganesh Rajbansh whose Enquest report is

Ext. 28/5 and P.M. report is Ext. 1/2 conducted by Dr. Sri Nath Prasad (P.W.

P.O. No. - 13 It was disclosed in the evidence of P.W.85 in paragraph 3n that this place of occurrence is the house of Shiv Bachan Ram, S/o Durbal ram and found four dead bodies were lying in the house: i. Samundri Devi, W/o Shiv Bachan whose P.M. report is Ext. 1/6

conducted by Dr. Sri Nath Prasad (P.W. 19) and Enquest report is Ext. ii. Shiv Bachan Ram, whose Enquest report is Ext. and P.M. Report

is Ext. 1/5 conducted by Dr. Sri Nath Prasad (p.W. 19).

iii.

Raj Kumar aged about 20 years, S/o Shiv Bachan Ram whose

Enquest report is Ext. 28/3 and P.M. report is Ext. 1/4 conducted by Dr. Sri Nath Prasad (P.W. 19). iv. Jayant Kumar aged about 10 years S/o Shiv Bachan whose

Enquest report is Ext. 28/4 and P.M. report is Ext. 1/3 conducted by Sri Nath Prasad (P.W. 19). I.O. has found six empty cartridges of .8 and 9 M.M.

P.O. - 14 Sri Shreedhar Mandal, the I.O. of this case, who has investigated first and disclosed this place of occurrence as P.W. 85 at paragraph 3/k that this is a Southern bank of Sone river where five dead bodies were found in different position: i. Chanarik Choudhary whose P.M. report is Ext. 1/35 conducted by

Dr. Mithilesh Kumar (P.W. 21) and Enquest report is Ext. ii. Gorakh Choudhary, S/o Chanarik Choudhary whose legs were tied

and her neck was half chopped off whose P.M. report is Ext. 1/36 conducted by Dr. Mithilesh Kumar (P.W. 21) and Enquest report is Ext. iii. Ext. iv. Naresh Choudhary, S/o Mahesh Choudhary whose P.M. was Shiv Kailash Choudhary whose P.M. was conducted by P.W. 21 Dr.

Mithilesh Kumar and issued a P.M. report as Ext. 1/37 and Enquest report is

conducted by Dr. Mithilesh Kumar (P.W. 21) and issued a report as Ext. 1/33 and Enquest report is Ext. v. Ram Niwas Choudhary whose P.M. report is Ext. 1/34 conducted

by Dr. Mithilesh Kumar (P.W. 21) and Enquest report is Ext. As such 58 (Fifty Eight) persons were murdered in this heinous crime and whose dead body was found in different places including the bank of river Sone.

8.

The investigation was going on since very beginning i.e. on 02.12.1997

since 11 A.M. and was rigorously contined till 09.12.1997 till 7 P.M. on the spot in a good and calculated manner. All of a sudden D.I.G., C.I.D., Patna vide his Memo No. 3829 dated 09.12.1997 and Wireless Message No. 3830 dated 09.12.1997 directed the I.O. to hand over the investigation to Sri M.M.A. Beg, Dy.S.P., C.I.D., Patna who is P.W. 91. Mr. M.M.A. Beg after going through the investigation done by his predecessor Mr. Shridhar Mandal and also perused the evidence collected by his predecessor which was verified by him step by step to strengthen the investigation further and lastly submitted charge-sheet against 49 accused persons and rest 16 persons were shown as an absconder (Ext. 33). The investigation was going on and supplementary case diary was submitted on 09.07.1998 against two accused for rest 14 absconding accused investigation is going on. Charge-sheet was submitted before the Court of C.J.M., Jehanabad, who took cognizance and after taking recourse committed the case to the Court of Sessions., Jehanabad on 06.01.1999. The then Sessions Judge, Jehanabad has registered the Sessions case and transferred it to the Court of Sri J. Rahman, Adddl. Sessions JudgeII, Jehanabad for trial and disposal.

9.

The record further shows that this case record of mehandia P.S. Case

No. 16/97 i.e. S.Tr. No. 2/99(Jehanabad) has been transmitted to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Patna from the Court of Addl. Session Judge-I, Jehanabad vide letter No. 607 dated 01.12.1999. The order-sheet dated 13.12.1999 shows that the record has been transmitted to the court of 2nd Addl. Sessions judge, Patna in compliance with the Hone'ble High Court's letter No. XVIII-1-99 dated 07.10.1999. The case record was pending since long for disposal as no charges were framed against the accused since a long period, as such, the Hon'ble High Court vide letter No. 18364/AD(Apptt)/XVIII-5-2008 (confidential) dated 29.11.2008 transferred this case record to the file Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra (by name) the then Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Patna now Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Patna.

10.

During the course of trial this case was taken on a priority basis and on

day to day basis also. Since 2nd January, 2009 the prosecution has started to adduce witnesses which are as follows:P.W.1 P.W.2 P.W.3 P.W.4 P.W.5 P.W.6 P.W.7 P.W.8 P.W.9 P.W.10. P.W.11 P.W.12 P.W.13 P.W.14 P.W.15 P.W.16 P.W.17 P.W.18 P.W.19 P.W.20 P.W.21 P.W.22 P.W.23 P.W.24 Belwanti Devi Sikandar Choudhary Lakshman Rajbansh Dudha Nath Choudhary Surendra Rajbansh Mutur Rajbansh Subedar Ravidas Ram Vinesh Rajbansh Yugal Ravidas Mahurati Devi Bimalesh Kumar Munni Rajbansh Makund Mistri Sohrai Mahto Chaukidar Ramanand Yadav Ram Ugrah Rajbansh Mahesh Rajbansh Manoj Kumar Dr. Sri Nath Prasad Dr. Ashok Kumar Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Dr. Mukesh Kumar Singh Dr. Rakesh Kumar Anil Kumar

P.W.25 P.W.26 P.W.27 P.W.28 P.W.29 P.W.30 P.W.31 P.W.32 P.W.33 P.W.34 P.W.35 P.W.36 P.W.37 P.W.38 P.W.39 P.W.40 P.W.41 P.W.42 P.W.43 P.W.44 P.W.45 P.W.46 P.W.47 P.W.48 P.W.49 P.W.50

Kamakhya Narain Kamal Deo Ram Ramanuj Pandit Ram Vinai Kumar Singh Baidyanath Prasad Om Prakash Paswan Panchanand Paswan Sahendra Paswan Ram Roop Ram Dukhan Choudhary Baleshwar Singh Sri Ram Dhari Singh Sri Bhagwan Singh Bhutti Ram Dashrath Ram Jai Pati Paswan Binod Paswan Sidhanath Paswan Ram Nath Ram Omkar Tiwary Ayodhya Singh Ram Naresh Kahar Vidyanand Prasad Bira Sao Nandjee Ram Hridaya Sao

P.W.51 P.W.52 P.W.53 P.W.54 P.W.55 P.W.56 P.W.57 P.W.58 P.W.59 P.W.60 P.W.61 P.W.62 P.W.63 P.W.64 P.W.65 P.W.66 P.W.67 P.W.68 P.W.69 P.W.70 P.W.71 P.W.72 P.W.73 P.W.74 P.W.75 P.W.76

Tes Lal Choudhary Siya Ram Choudhary Gopi Chandra Singh Ram Nath Singh Awadhesh Chamar Awadhesh Dusadh Banshidhar Sharma Bhagra Sao Deo Narain Ram Ram Chandra Ram Jawahar Ram Mangal Ram Jatuli Ram Teja Kahar Dashrath Sharma Surendra Prasad Kashi Sao Dhora Ram Sipahi Sao Mishari Prasad Kahar Rajan Ram Harinarain Ram Amir Chandra Ram Ram Suresh Singh Sipahi Ram Prasad Ram

P.W.77 P.W.78 P.W.79 P.W.80 P.W.81 P.W.82 P.W.83 P.W.84 P.W.85 P.W.86 P.W.87 P.W.88 P.W.89 P.W.90 P.W.91

Shiv Shankar Ram Gupteshwar Singh @ Kahar Bijali Ram Dipan Sharma Puranamasi Ram Raj Kumar Rai Ram Balak Yadav Nathu Prasad Tatani Shri Dhar Mandal Dr. Rajendra Prasad Azahar Hussain Akhilendra Kumar Singh Dr. G. C. Jha Dr. Jainendra Kumar Mirza Maqsood Alam Beg

11.

The prosecution has also exhibited the following documents as an

Exhibits in support of his case: Exts. 1 to 1/57 are Post Mortem reports of deceased. Exts. 2 to 2/17 are Enquest reports. Exts. 3 to 3/17 are Enquest reports. Exts. 4 to 4/9 are Enquest reports. Exts. 5 to 5/9 are Enquest reports. Exts. 6 to 6/6 are Enquest reports. Exts. 7 to 7/13 are signature on seizure lists. Exts. 8 to 8/6 are signature on Enquest reports.

Exts. 9 to 9/13 are signature on seizure lists. Exts. 10 to 10/10 are signature on seizure list. Exts. 11 to 11/10 are signature on seizure list. Exts. 12 to 12/21 are Enquest reports. Exts. 13 is the signature on written reports. Exts. 14 to 14/3 are the injury reports Exts. 15 is the formal F.I.R. Exts. 16 is the signature on formal F.I.R. Exts. 17 to 17/3 is the injury reports. Exts. 18 to 18/10 are the Enquest reports. Exts. 19 is the fard-beyan. Exts. 20 is the signature on the fard-beyan Exts. 21 is the formal F.I.R. Exts. 22 to 22/9 are the Enquest reports. Exts. 23 to 23/10 are the Enquest reports. Exts. 24 to 24/4 are the Enquest reports. Exts. 25 to 25/6 are the Enquest reports. Exts. 26 to 26/10 are the Enquest reports. Exts. 27 to 27/5 are the Enquest reports. Exts. 28 to 28/7 are the Enquest reports. Exts. 29 to 29/10 are the Enquest reports. Exts. 30 is the injury report. Ext. 31 to 31/2 are the Injury reports. Ext. 32 is the F.S.L. Report. Ext. 33 and 33/A are the charge-sheets. Ext. 34 is the report of Forensic Science Laboratory.

12.

The accused persons on 08.10.2009 during their statement recorded

U/s 313 Cr.P.C. have denied the occurrence and submitted that they are innocent and they are being implicated in this case due to village politics as they belongs to a particular case i.e. Bhumihar and the then Government has taken steps for falsely implicated them in this massacre and there is no existence of Ranvir Sena and they are not the members of Ranvir Sena.

13.

The defence has examined the following defence witnesses:D.W.1 D.W.2 D.W.3 D.W.4 D.W.5 D.W.6 D.W.7 D.W.8 D.W.9 D.W.10 Rajiv Nayan Kumar Mritunjay Sharma Imeshwar Singh Bhola Sharma Upendra Sharma Dinanath Sharma Mukesh Kumar Devendra Pratap Jagadish Choudhary Deo Bans Yadav

14.

The defence has exhibited two documents: Ext. A is the certificate of the

Head Master of Primary Madhya Vidyalaya, Narhi, Jehanabad and Ext. B is the attendance of accused Ram Kewal Sharma in the aforesaid School of Narhi.

15.

Heard the Learned Senior lawyer on behalf of the defence as well as the

Senior Special Public Prosecutor in detail in a patience hearing and I am thankful regarding the co-operation given by both the sides for the disposal of this an important Sessions case of Massacre i.e. Laxmanpur Bathe. The main consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to establish and prove the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

F I N D I N G S

16.

Before entering into the evidence and scrutinizing the same I am of the

view to note down the facts which are admitted and not disputed by both the parties and which are as follows:i. Laxmanpur Bathe village situate in District Jehanabad at present in Arwal District. ii. In the intervening night or 1/2 December, 1997, 53 pesons were killed in Laxmanpur Bathe and five persons in the Bank of river Sone. iii. iv. v. Deceased were belonging to the community of scheduled castes. The accused are one of particular caste i.e. Bhumihar Brahmin. Laxmanpur Bathe was notified as Mortuary by order of District Magistrate, Jehanabad to conduct post mortem of 58 persons. vi. Post Mortem was conducted by different doctors in the village Lakshmanpur Bathe. vii. viii. Three boys and girls were killed in this massacre. There is statue of Ranvir Baba at village Belaur P.S. Udwantnagar, District Bhojpur and 8th October of every year is celebrated as anniversary day of Ranvir Sena. ix. Ram Kewal Sharma was a teacher at that time in Madhya Vidyalaya, Narhi, Dist. Jehanabad. x. Foot prints were found on the sand towards river which were 100 to 150 persons. xi. The family members of the deceased were compensated by the Government either by giving employment in the Government department or by way of compensation. xii. 50 to 60 feet long wall exists in village Bathe.

xiii.

F.I.R. was lodged on 02.12.1997 at Mehandia police station and was sent to the Court and reached on 04.12.1997 before the Court of C.J.M., Jehanabad.

xiv.

After investigation police has submitted charge-sheet and C.J.M., Jehanabad took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 06.01.1999.

xv.

The Sessions Judge, Jehanabad transferred the case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad Sri J. Rahman.

xvi.

Later on vide Honble Courts letter no. XVIII-1-99 dated 07.10.1999 the case was transferred to the Court of Patna Jurisdiction.

xvii. The Honble High Court vide letter no. 18364/AD (Apptt)/XVIII-5- 2008 (Confidential) dt. 29.11.2008 transferred this case by name to the Court of Sri Vijai Prakash Mishra, Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Patna for disposal on priority basis.

17.

These facts are the factual aspect of the Sessions trial.

18.

It is an admitted fact that total 58 persons were killed in this heinous crime. So to facilitate and scrutinizing the evidence and also for evaluating the same, I think it would be proper to discuss the evidence accused wise in contest with the identification by the witnesses to that definite and positive finding may be obtained for the disposal of the Sessions Case.

19.

After going through the evidences it appears that some of the accused persons were identified by nine witnesses during the commission of crime. So I took up the case of accused Girja Singh, who was identified by nine witnesses and which are follows:-

Girja Singh: This accused belongs to village Lakshmanpur Bathe aged about 63 years was identified by nine witnesses either in the torch light or the demeanour of this accused. These nine witnesses are:i. P.W.3 Lakshman Rajbans, who was examined on 05.01.2009 is

the witness of P.O. No. 12, as stated by P.W.85 in Para-3. This P.O. is the house of Surendra Rajbansh in which three persons, namely, Jai Murti Devi, Malti Devi, and Prabhawati Devi were killed. This witness in the Court identified this accused Girja Singh which was not challenged by the defence. The entire evidence goes to show that the contradiction which were taken by the defence are the minor in nature and does not change the credibility of this witness. ii. P.W.4 Dudha Nath Choudhary, who was examined on 07.01.2009

in the Court is the witness of P.O. No. 7, as stated by the P.W.85 in Para-3 which is the house of Garib Chandra Choudhary where Garib Chandra Choudhary himself, Sanichary Devi, Sona Devi, Satita Kumar aged about 5 years and Anita Kumari aged about 3 years were found dead. This witness has seen the occurrence and hes stated that he identified this accused in the light of torch at the time of occurrence and also identified this accused in the Court. The cross-examination does not express that under what circumstances this witness has identified this accused in the Court as well as at the time of occurrence and why he is telling a lie rather he supports the involvement of this accused in the commission of this crime. iii. P.W.6 Mutur Rajbansh, who was examined on 12.01.2009 in the

Court is the witness of P.O. No.6 which is the house of Yaduni Rajbansh where six persons were by the miscreants and they are Ful Kumari, Chinya Devi, Rajmania Devi, Dhankuer Devi, Saroj Kumari and Vishwanath Ravidas aged about 9 years and one Mahesh Rajbansh was injured. This witness has also identified this accused at the time of occurrence and in the Court also. There is no major contradiction to disbelieve the testimony of this witness and also there is no circumstance that why this witness has personal grudge to falsely implicate this accused in this heinous and nefarious crime. iv. P.W.7 Subedar Ravidas, who was examined in the Court on

14.01.2009 is the witness if P.O. No. 13 which is the house of Shiv Bachan Ram where Samundari Devi, Shiv Bachan Ram himself, Raj Kumar, Jayant Kumar aged about 10 years and Chatia Devi were killed in the massacre. This witness has also identified this accused in the Court along with other accused and identification was not challenged by the defence. v. P.W.9 Yugal Ravidas, who was examined on 16.01.2009 in the

court is the witness of P.O. No. 13 as described by the I.O.(P.W.85) in Para-3 and as stated above, five persons were killed by the accused persons. vi. P.W.10 Mahurati Devi, who is an important witness as she is

unfortunately alive because she was injured and good luck she could not met with death, was examined on 17.01.2009 by the prosecution and this witness is the witness of P.O.4 which is the house of deceased Etawariya Devi, whose dead body was found lying on the cot. This Etawariya Devi is the mother of this injured Mahurati Devi and this witness Mahurati Devi has specifically stated on oath before the court that this accused Girja Singh shot dead to her mother. The specific allegation and identification of this witness is witness is there. vii. P.W.11 Bimalesh Kumar, who was examined in the Court on

19.01.2009 is the witness of P.O. No.2 which is the house of Sohan Rajbansh. In this incident the father of this witness along with other family members were killed. The description of P.O. No.2 as disclosed by P.W.85 in Para-3 Sohan Rajbansh, Kamalesh Rajbansh, Devesh Rajbansh, Kalawati Devi and Malti Devi were killed in this cruel incident. This witness Bimalesh Kumar is the only person, who could save himself from the indiscriminate killing and has deposed in the Court that this accused Girja Singh entered into the house and killed his father. This witness has also identified this accused along with others in the Court and his identification was not challenged by the defence. viii. P.W.16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh, who was examined on 24.01.2009

is the witness of P.O. No.12 which is the house of Surendra Rajbansh S/o Laxman Rajbansh in which Jai Murati Devi, Malati Devi, and Prabhawati Devi were killed by the miscreants. The dead body of Jai Murati Devi and Malti Devi were found in sliding position. This witness has also identified this accused

along with others in commission of the crime as well as at the time of examination before the Court. Again I do not find any discrepancy to doubt the testimony of this witness. ix. P.W.41 Binod Paswan, who is the unfortunate informant of this

case was examined in the Court on 02.04.2009 and he is the witness of P.O. No.1 which is the house of the informant himself in which his mother Raj Raniya Devi, sister Rita Devi along with Kabutari Devi, Amar Paswan, Umar Paswan, Anoj Paswan, and Sohan Paswan were killed in the indiscriminate firing made by the accused persons. In his examination he has identified this accused in the Court. This witness has escaped himself unfortunately due to hidden in the middle of earthen Kothi. The identification was not challenged by the defence in the Court and there is no circumstance to disbelieve it. As such by considering the evidence of aforesaid nine witnesses I find that this accused Girja Singh was involved in cruel and indiscriminate killing of large number of human beings as the evidences show that he was moving around the village and committing this heinous crime because he was identified at 1st P.O., 2nd P.O., 4th P.O., 6th P.O., 7th P.O., 12th P.O., and 13th P.O. The presence of this accused in different place of occurrence shows his active involvement in the alleged commission of murders with cruelty.

20.

Accused Surendra

Singh S/o

Mahadeo

Singh belongs

to village

Lakshmanpur Bathe aged about 63 years and he was seen and identified by seven witnesses. The witnesses came before the Court and categorically deposed against this accused like as:i. P.W.2 Sikandar Choudhary, who was examined before the Court

on 03.01.2009 is the witness of P.O. No.7 as described by P.W.85 in Para-3 which is the house of Garib Chandra Choudhary in which Garib Chandra Choudhary himself, his wife Sanichary Devi, daughter Sona Devi, Sarita Kumari aged about 5 years and Anita Kumar aged about 3 years were killed by the accused persons. This witness has identified this accused along with others in the Court and to disbelieve the testimony of this witness defence has not produced any circumstance before me.

ii.

P.W.3 Lakshman Rajbansh was examined on 05.01.2009 is the

witness of 12th P.O. which is the house Surendra Rajbansh. This witness while deposing in the Court has specifically ascertained that this accused due to indiscriminate firing killed his daughter-in-law, namely, Malti Devi while the incident was going on. This witness also belongs to village Lakshmanpur Bathe and has identified this accused in the Court as well as at the time of commission of the crime. iii. P.W.6 Mutur Rajbansh, who was examined on 12.01.2009 is the

witness of P.O. No. 6 which is the house of Yaduni Rajbansh where six persons were killed. This witness has also identified this accused before the Court and identification was not challenged by the defence. The circumustances does not compelled me to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. iv. P.W.8 Ram Vinesh Rajbansh, who was examined on 15.01.2009 is

the witness of P.O. No.4 which was described by P.W.85 in Para-3 which is the house of Etawaria Devi and this witness has also identified this acused in the Court which was not challenged by the defence. The credibility of this witness is sound one and there is no circumstance to disbelieve the evidence. v. P.W.12 Munni Rajbansh was examined in the court on 20.01.2009

is the witness of P.O. No.5 which is the house of Munni Rajbansh in which five persons, namely, Roopkala Devi, wife of this witness, Domani Devi, Sheela Devi, Sunita Kumari aged about 8 years and Chhote Lal were killed by the miscreants. This witness has identified this acused in the Court which was not challenged by the defence and the circumstances is strong one to believe it. vi. P.W.16 Ram Ugrah Rabjbansh, who was examined in the Court on

24.01.2009 is the witness of P.O. No. 12 which is the house of Surendra Rajbansh where Jai Murati Devi, Malati Devi and Prabhawati Devi were found killed by the miscreants in which this accused was identified by this witness at the time of commission of the crime as well as in the court and the identification was not challenged by the defence. At the same time the defence has not created any circumustance before me as to why this witness is telling a lie against this accused.

vii.

P.W. 41 Binod Paswan, who is the informant of the case, and was

examined in the Court on 02.04.2009 is a witness of 1st P.O. and has identified this accused in the house. He has stated that this accused along with others entered into the house and shot dead nine persons including the mother of this witness. He has identified the accused in the Court and claimed to identify the accused, who was not present in the court and the defence has not challenged the identification as well as has not given any suggestion for the false implication of this accused in the commission of this mass killing and the poorest fellow of the society.

21.

On scrutinizing the evidences of above seven witnesses it is clear that

this accused was present while the occurrence was going on and also have participated and present at different place of occurrence, as stated above, one by one and, as such, the involvement of this accused can not be denied in the mass killing as prosecution has alleged.

22.

Accused Ashok Singh S/o Late Indradeo Rai of village Lakhsmanpur

Bathe aged bout 46 years is identified by six witnesses in the Court while the witnesses were deposing on oath.

i.

P.W.4 Dudha Nath Choudchary, who was examined on 07.01.2009

is the witness of P.O. No. 7 which is the house of Garib Chandra Choudhary as per the evidence of P.W.85 at Para-3 in which Garib Chandra Choudhary himself, his wife and daughters were killed were five in numbers including three years daughter Anita Kumari and Sarita Kumari aged about 5 years. This witness has identified this accused Ashok Singh and stated before the court that identification was made in the light of torch. He has also stated that this accused belongs to villages Laxmanpur Bathe. As such, it was not proper to identify him. No doubt on that day this accused Ashok Singh was not present before the court and was represented through u/s 317 Cr.P.C. but the claim of this witness regarding identification was not challenged by the defence.

ii.

P.W.7 Subedar Ravidas, who was examined in the Court on

14.01.2009 is the witness of P.O. No.13 which is the house of Sheo Bachan Ram, S/o Durbal Ram in which Sheo Bachan Ram himself along with his wife and sons, and Chhatia Devi were killed by the miscreants. The miscreants entered into the house by breaking the knob of the door. This witness has named this accused and identified this accused in the Court also. On that day rest accused persons were absent and this witness has claimed to identify the same but the identification was not challenged by the defence. iii. P.W.8 Ram Vinesh Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on

15.01.2009 is the witness of P.O. No.4 which is the house of deceased Etawariya Devi, who was also found dead and her dead body was found lying on a cot. This witness has identified accused Ashok Singh in the commission of crime and specifically stated that this accused Ashok Singh belongs to his own village and due to villagers he has easily identified him although all the accused persons were on representation u/s 317 Cr.P.O. but the identification of the accused were not denied by the defence. This witness during the course of cross-examination does not compelled me to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. iv. P.W.9 Yugal Ravidas, who was examined in the Court on

16.01.2009 is the witness of P.O. No. 13 which is the house of Shiv Bachan Ram in which he himself along with other family members number in five were killed by the miscreants in this unfortunate massacre. During the course of evidence this witness has specifically stated that he identified this accused along with others. He has deposed that while his mother was crying and reached near the hut this accused Ashok Singh killed her by firing. Identification of this accused was not challenged by the defence. v. P.W.12 Munni Rajbansh, who was examined in the court on

20.01.2009 is the witness of P.O. No. 5 which is the house of Munni Rajbansh whose door was broken and the dead body of Roopkala Devi, W/o Munni Rajbansh was found on Pual. As stated by the Investigating Officer P.W.85 at Para-3 in this unfortunate incident in the house of Munni Rajbansh five persons were killed by the miscreants. This witness has claimed for the

identification of the accused persons and on that day of evidence of Munni Rajbansh accused persons were represented U/s 317 Cr.P.C. and their identification was not challenged by the defence. vi. P.W.41 Binod Paswan, who is the informant of this case, was

examined in the Court on 02.04.2009 and he is the witness of P.O. No.1 and he has stated that all his family members were killed in this cruel and indiscriminate killing of human beings with cruelty has identified this accused at the time of commission of the crime as well as at the time or occurrence. This witness is an eye witness and has stated that this accused was present in the room and while using indiscriminate firing killing the family members of the informant.

23.

Considering the evidences of above six witnesses the defence during the

course of cross-examination has not put any circumstance from the mouth of the witness and also the circumstances does not compelled me to disbelieve the testimony of this witness while the massacre was going on and identification of this accused was specific one. At the same time the conduct of this accused is to be seen that he was present almost all the place of occurrence in which witness have identified and identification was not challenged.

24.

Accused Gopal Sharan Singh, S/o Late Awadhesh Singh aged about 61

years and is of village Laxamanpur Bathe. This accused is named and claimed to identify by five witnesses. The details are as follows:P.W.3 Laxaman Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 05.01.2009 is the witness of 12th P.O. has named and claimed to identify this accused along with other accused persons. Certainly this accused belongs to village Laxamanpur Bathe and the witness is also of the same village. On the day of examination this accused was not present in the court and was represented U/s 317 Cr.P.C. During the course of evidence this witness has

claimed to identify the persons to whom he named in the evidence and this identification was not challenged by the defence. The 13th P.O. is the house of Sheo Bachan Ram where the miscreants entered into the house by breaking the door and assaulted Sheo Bachan Ram himself along with other four family members resulted to death in the room. The circumstances as well as the identification in the court done by this witness against this accused does not show to disbelieve his testimony. P.W.8 Ram Vinesh Rajbansh, who was examined in the court on 15.01.2009 is the witness of 4th P.O. which is identified by P.W.85 in Para-3, the house of deceased Etawaria Devi as she was killed in her own house by miscreants. On the day of examination all the accused persons were on representation u/s 317 Cr.P.C. The witness has claimed for identification of the accused stating therein that the accused is of his own village. The identification was not challenged by the defence rather the defence has not put any suggestion or any positive affirmative question as to why this witness is giving the evidence against this accused neither any enmity nor any motive against him. P.W. 10 Mahurati Devi, who is an injured witness, was examined in the Court on 17.01.2009 is also the witness of 4th P.O. and specifically named and identified this accused along with other accused persons. In her examination she has stated that this accused, when her mother fell down, asked the other miscreants to repeat one fire on the body of her mother but the another miscreants told him that now she is no more, as such, it is not needed. She is living person of her family who has stated categorically and identified the accused persons naming therein either in the evidence or identification in the court. Her mother was killed and she has sustained injury in this occurrence. Neither the defence has suggested nor there is any positive evidence before me to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. P.W.16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 24.01.2009, is the witness of 11th P.O. which is the house of Ram Polish Mahto in which miscreants entered into the house after breaking the door and shot dead Ram Polish Mahto himself, his wife Basanti Devi and Taregani D/o

Sohan Mahto. This witness has named and identified the co-villager this accused along with other accused persons. His evidence on this point that a particular on the point of identification the defence has neither challenged nor give any circumstance to disbelieve the testimony or the credibility of this witness. P.W. 41 Binod Paswan, who is the sole informant of this case, was examined on 02.04.2009 and he is witness of his own house i.e. P.O. No.1 as designed by P.W.85 in para-3( ). This informant has described his house with earthen wall roofed Khapra and inside the house paddy crop was used for bed on which dead body of mother Raj Raniya Devi, sister Rita Devi, Kabutari Devi, Amar Paswan, Umar Paswan, Anoj Paswan and Sohan Paswan was found dead. He has further stated that just the side of the dead body of Sohan Paswan empty cartridges and mark of violence was found. The evidence of this witness shows the gravity of the scene to all the family members except for the God sake this informant could saved himself by putting him behind the Kothi. This witness had named and identified this accused as this accused has entered into the room and committed the cruel crime. Though a lengthy cross-examination is there but nothing came out from the mouth of the informant to disbelieve the testimony and credibility or the motive for the false implication of this accused Gopal Sharan Singh.

25.

Considering the above evidences of five witnesses stated in details this

witness was mainly centralized himself at 4th P.O. and 12th P.O. along with 1st P.O. This witnesses belongs to Laxamanpur Bathe village. This accused belongs to village Laxamanpur Bathe and the witnesses have identified him by the behaviour, conduct, deportment as they belongs to same village. The identification was not challenged and it could not challenged because the accused and the witnesses belongs to the same village.

26.

Now I discuss the evidence against those accused persons in which

there is four identification by the witnesses in the Court.

27.

Accused Baleshwar Singh S/o Parasuram Singh aged about 80 years of

village Bathe. This accused is identified by P.W. 6, P.W. 14, P.W. 16, and P.W.41, respectively. So I take up the evidences of these prosecution witnesses one by one. P.W.6 Mutur Rajbansh is of village Bathe, who was examined in the Court on 12.1.2009 and he is the witness of 6th P.O. as designed and described by P.W. 85 at para-3 ( ). 6th P.O. is the house of Yaduni Rajbansh in which six persons were met to death and one Mahesh Rajbansh was injured during the course of evidence. This witness was injured during the course of evidence. This witness has stated that he saw 50-80 persons entered into the house but identified this accused along with Surendra Singh and Girja Singh of village Bathe. On the day of evidence these accused persons were represented U/s 317 Cr.P.C. As such the identification of the accused was not challenged by the defence. The accused persons are of village Laxmanpur Bathe and this witness also belongs to village Laxmanpur. He has deposed that he was in the house and after hearing the firing came out from the house and asked the other family members to rescue themselves. He has further stated that the miscreants entered into the house after breaking the door and this witness sat on the Bareri after concealing himself and saw the miscreants entering into the house having rifle and three shell torch and gunned down six persons, namely, Ful Kumari, Chiniya Devi, Rajmania Devi, Dhankuer Devi, Saroj Kumari, Vishwanath Ravidas and one Mahesh Rajbansh, who was ijured in the said occurrence. The enquest reports of the decreased are Ext. 26 to 26/5 and P.M. reports are Ext. 1/38 and Ext. 1/48 to Ext. 1/55 which were issued by Dr. Rakesh Kumar, P.W. 23. The Doctor in his evidence has stated regarding the death which was caused by haemorrhage and shock by fire arm injuries and the injuries are sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. As such, so far the identification is concerned there is no dispute as the witness and the accused are of the same village and can be easily identified by demonoir or even in the torch light. The identification of this accused was not challenged by the defence also. The Doctors report is in consistent with the nquest report and the evidence of this witness.

P.W.-14 Sohrai Mahto, who also belongs to village Laxmanpur Bathe, was examined in the Court on 22.1.2009. He is the witness of 11th P.O. and during his examination he identified this accused Baleshwar Singh along with Pramod Singh, Ram Equawal Sharma, Nandu Singh also. This 11th P.O. is the house of Ram Polish Mahto in which three persons were killed i.e. Ram Polish Mahto, Bansanti Devi and Taregani of which Enquest reports are Ext. 22/7 to Ext. 22/9 and corresponding P.M. Reports are Ext. 1/28 and Exts. 1/31 to 1/32 which were issued and done by Dr. Mithilesh Kumar, P.W. 21. Doctor in his report has clearly stated the cause of death is due to haemmorage and shock and the injuries found on the person of the deceased was sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. In his evidence this witness has stated that on the fateful night he was sleeping in the Dalan of Bikhari Thakur and after hearing the shound of firing he rushed up to his house and when he reached just near to Gali he saw the occurrence escaping himself in the Gali and identified the accused persons, who are of the same village. On the said date of his examination in the Court no accused was present as such, so far as the identification is concerned it is confirmed and it is not objected. P.W. 16 Ram Ugarah Rajbansh has claimed himself as an eye

witness and was examined in the Court on 24.1.2009. He is the witness of P.O. No. 12 which is the house of Surendra Rajbansh S/o Laxman Rajbansh in which Jai Murati Devi, Malti Devi, Prabhawati Devi sustained injuries resulting their death. Their Enquest reports were prepared by P.W. 24 and 25, respectively, as Ext.28/6, 28/5, 28/7. The corresponding P.M. Reports are Ext. 1/1 to1/2. The P.M. was conducted by Dr. Sri Nath Prasad (P.W.19). The doctor, who has conducted the Post-mortum in his evidence has stated that these injuries sufficient to cause death in course oridinary nature and the death was caused due to harmmorage and shock due to fire arm injuries. This witness Ram Ugarah Rajbansh has named and identified 21 persons in his evidence before the Court and they are Dharma Singh, Birendra Singh, Surendra Singh, Anjani Singh, Mithilesh Singh, Bablu Singh, Phanish Singh, Dwarika Singh, Gopal Singh, Baliram Singh, Pramod Singh, Nawal Sharma, Bijendra Singh, Girja Singh, Baleshwar Singh, Nandu Singh, Nawin Sharma, Sunil Sharma, Sheo Mohan Sharma. The witness has also named and

identified accused Awadhesh Singh and Bhushan Sharm, now they are dead. This witness was examined on 24.1.2009 and all the accused persons under representation u/s 317 Cr. P.C. except accused Nawin Sharma. This witness had identified Nawin Sharma and claimed to identify others. There is no crossexamination regarding the identification claimed by this witness. This witness in his examination has stated that he was sleeping in the house, heard two fire and saw from the brick-wall of the house that in the orchard there are 2025 persons were standing and they pushed the door of his brothers house Laxman Rajbansh and entered into the house. They have torch, arms, Fasuli, Tangi, Kulhari. In Para-2 of his evidence he has narrated now the accused persons entered into the house and assaulted the inmates of the house, who resulted into death. So far the occurrence is concerned and the manner in which this witness has described the commission of the crime and the identification by him there is no major contradiction to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. P.W. 41 Binod Paswan who is a witness of P.O. No.1 is an eye

witness and he was examined in the Court on 2.4.2009 has named and identified nine persons in the room during the commission of the crime and they are Anjani Singh, Dwarika Singh, Pramod Singh, Gopal Singh, Hari Ram Singh, Ashok Singh, Phanish Singh, Birendra Singh and Surendra Singh. This witness has also identified the accused, who were out side the house and they are Dharichan Singh, Kawal Singh, Shatrughan Singh, Nand Singh, Nandu Singh, Baleshwar Singh, Girja Singh, Bhukhan Singh, Bijendra Singh, Mithilesh Singh, Bablu singh, Surendra Singh, Sheo Mohan Singh, Sudarshan Singh, who were present out side the house. He has also identified Bhusnan Singh, who is now dead. This witness has identified this accused Baleshwar Singh at the time of occurrence, who was out side of this house. Identification was in the torch flash light and the demonoir of the accused persons like speech, language etc. This witness has also stated that prior to the occurrence there was meeting in between Parmeshwar Singh of village Khopia, Pramod Singh of village Etwari and Krishna Sardar of village Pali. The evidence shows the involvement of this accused in the commission of the crime and during the course of cross-examination there is no contradiction to disbelieve the

testimony of this witness so far as this accused is concerned.

28.

Accused Dwarika Singh S/o late Ram Naresh Singh aged about 58 years

of village Laxmanpur Bathe : This accused is identified by four witnesses in the Court. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are also of the same village Laxmanpur Bathe and which are as under :P.W.1 Belwanti Devi was the first witness during the course

of trial and examined in the Court on 2.1.2009. She is the witness to the occurrence which is described by P.W.85 in Para 3 ( ) as P.O. no. 8. She has named the accused persons and also claimed for identification on the date of examination the accused persons were represented u/s 317 Cr.P.C. and the identification claimed by herself was not challenged by the defence. One thing which is remarkable is that this lady was girl at the time of alleged occurrence aged about 10-11 years and fortunately saved in this cruel and indiscriminate killing and dared to depose against the accused persons in the Court. The 8th P.O. is the house of Mahendra Choudhary in which Mahendra Choudhary, his wife and son Om Nath Choudhary and Nanhak Choudhary were subjected to death by the miscreants. In her examination she has stated that she along with her younger brother managed to escape themselves where behind the cot the miscreants fired and understood that both have died but unfortunately she could not get any injury. In her cross-examination every aspect were touched by the defence but neither any major contradiction nor any circumstance is before me to disbelieve the testimony of this lady witness she has dared to come before the Court to depose and to tell trugh in the Court on oath regarding the occurrence P.W. 5 Surendra Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 9.1.2009 is the witness of 12th P.O. which is his own house where his mother Jai Murati Devi, his wife Malti Devi, Prabhawati Devi W/o Ganesh Rajbansh were killed by the miscreants.

P.W. 24 and 25 are the witness to the Enquest report and 9 MM empty cartridge were found in his room. This witness has also named and claimed for identification of the accused persons. On the date of examination none of the accused was present and defence has also not challenged the identification. The evidence is intact and cogent. There is no circumstances to disbelieve the testimony of the same. P.W. 16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 24.1.12009 is also a witness of P.O. No. 12 which is fully described in the above paragraph, has also named and claimed for identification of the accused. The manner in which the occurrence took place there is no contradiction in his evidence to disbelieve the credibility of this witness. On the date of examination all the accused persons against whom he claimed for identification were represented u/s 317 Cr.P.C. P.W. 41 Binod Paswan was examined in the Court on 2.4.2009 is the witness of 1st P.O. which is his own house and in his evidence he has stated the conduct of this accused by entering into the house and committing the heinous crime. His identification was not challenged by the defence as it could not be because the accused and this informant belongs to the same village Laxmanpur Bathe.

29.

The above evidence of four witnesses it appears, prima-facie that

at the time of occurrence this accused was moving from 1st P.O. to 8 P.O. and 12th P.O. The identification made by the witnesses were not challenged and also the cross-examination does not carry any contradiction to disbelieve the testimony.

30.

Accused Bijendra Singh, S/o late DidhyaNath Singh, aged about

55 years is of village Laxmanpur Bathe. This accused was identified by again four witnesses of his own village and they are :P.W. 3 Laxman Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on

5.1.2009 is the witness of 12 P.O. which is the house of surendra Rajbansh where three persons were killed by the miscreants. During the course of evidence this witness has identified along with other accused. This accused was present in the Court and this witness has specifically identified him. During the course of evidence this witness has disclosed the conduct of the accused persons along with other accused. The identifications was not challenged as accused himself was present in the Court nor any cogent or positive circumstance is before me to disbelieve the facts as disclosed by this witness. P.W. 4 Dudnath Rajbansh, who was examined in the court on 7.1.2009 is the witness of 7th P.O. which is the house of Garib Chandra Choudhary alongwith his wife and daughter and two teenager namely, Satira Kumari aged about 5 years and Anita Kumari aged about 3 years were killed by indiscriminate firing by the accused persons. On the date of his examination this accused Bijendra Singh was present in the Court. The witness identified this accused along with others two accused, who were present. The testimony and the identification was not challenged by the defence that what was the grudge to depose against the accused persons who are co-villagers. P.W. 16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 24.1.2009 is the witness of 12th P.O. which is the house of Surendra Rajbansh where three persons were killed. This witness has also named and claimed to identify this accused. On the date of examination only accused Nawin Sharma was present and rest are represented U/s 317 Cr.P.C. As such the identification alleged are claimed by the witness, was not challenged by the defence. So to disbelieve the testimony of this witness there is no ground at present before me. P.W.41 Binod Paswan as I have already stated above, was examined on 2.4.2009 is the witness of his own house which is P.O.No.1. During the course of evidence he has stated that he identified this accused out side the house in the gathering. The identification was

not challenged by the defence, as such, so far as the testimony of this witness is concerned as against this accused can not be disbelieved.

31.

This evidence of above four witnesses goes to show that this accused

Bijendra Singh was present on 1st P.O and 12th P.O. during the commission of crime. The full detailed evidences after going through scrutinizing, does not support the defence version as there is no particular evidence as to why these witness are desposing against this accused.

32.

Accused Nawal Singh S/o late Ram Bhajan Singh aged about 62 years is

of village Laxmanpur Bathe. This accused was identified by four witnesses. The details are as follows: P.W.1 Balwanti Devi was examined in the court on 2.1.2009 was the witness of P.O. No. 8 and she identified this accused in the Court also. The identification was not challenged and the testimony can not be disbelieved in any way of the manner. P.W.5 Surendra Rajbansh, who was examined in the court on 9.1.2009 is the witness of 12th P.O, which is the house of Surendra Rajbansh in which three persons were killed and on the date of examination this accused Nawal Singh was present and was identified by this witness in the court. Rest are represented u/s 317 C.R.P.C and why this accused was identified and what is the grudge to depose against this accused by this witness is not before me to disbelieve the testimony of this witness/ P.S.10 Mahurati Devi is an injured and was examined in the Court on 17.1.2009. She was subjected to victim of this great incident caused by miscreants. She is the witness of 4th P.O and in her evidence she has stated that this accused Nawal Singh has given bullet blow to her. She has named and identified this accused in the Court. The presence and testimony of this witness can not be disbelieved as she has sustained injury and examined by the doctor.

P.W.16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 24.1.2009, is the witness of 12th P.O. In his evidence he has named and claimed to identify this accused but on that date this accused was represented u/s. 317 C.R.P.C and the claim to identify was not challenged by the defence. As such, the testimony and identification can not be disbelieved.

33.

Considering the evidence of all the aforesaid four witness and the

involvement of this accused Nawal Singh is there. Injured Mahurati Devi has categorically named and the manner by which she has sustained injury has deposed before the Court that this accused was present on 4th , 8th and 12th P.O which was designed by P.S.85.

34.

Accused Baliram Singh S/o late Awadhesh Singh aged about 35 years is

of village Laxmanpur Bathe and he was named and identified by four witnesses and their details are as under:P.W.3 Laxman Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on

5.1.2009, is the witness of 12th P.O which is the house of Surdendra Rajbansh where three persons were killed. This witness has identified this accused in the Court. The testimony can not be disbelieved as there is no motive for false implication or giving false evidence against this accused. P.W.8 Ram Vinesh Rajbansh, who is villager of this accused Baliram Singh, was examined in the Court on 15.1.2009, is the witness of 4th P.O, has named and claimed for identification of this accused. The identification was not challenged as accused persons are represented u/s. 317 Cr. P.C. As such, the evidence of this witness if going through, does not come under the purview to disbelieve it. P.W.10 Mahurati Devi, who is an injured, was examined in the Court on 17.1.2009 is the witness of 4th P.O which is described in the evidence of P.W.85 at para- 3(d) is the house of Itwaria where Etwaria was killed by the miscreants. She has sustained injuries by the accused but for this accused she has identified and stated that this accused has snatched the earing and

the chain from her person. As I have stated in my discussion the evidence of this injured witness Mahurati Devi can not be disbelieved and the identification and the conduct of this accused, in her evidence, is a strong circumstance regarding the presence of this accused at the time of occurrence. P.W.16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on

24.1.2009 is the witness of 12th P.O has claimed for the identification but on the date of his examination all the accused persons were represented U/s 317 Cr. P.C. This witness has named this accused along with other accused. The identification was not challenged by the defence and the manner in which the witness has deposed does not give any help to the defence side. 35. Accused Dharma Singh, S/o Late Shiv Singh aged about 44 years is of

village Kamta. Kamta is the village which is just by the side of village Laxmanpur Bathe. It was come in the evidence that this accused was identified by four witnesses. The details is as under :P.W. 4 Dudhnath Rajbansh was examined in the court on 7.1.2009 is the witness of 7th P.O. which is the house of Garib Chandra Choudhary where five persons were subjected to kill. In his evidence this witness has identified this accused in the Court and stated that the means of identification as the torch light. I will discuss the means of identification later on while discussing this chapter but so far as the identification of this accused is concerned the witness has identified in the Court but no suggestion has been given by the defence to disbelieve the evidence done on the court. P.W. 11 Bimlesh Kumar, who is also an injured witness, was examined in the Court on 19.1.2009 and he is the witness of 2nd P.O. which is the house of Sohan Rajbansh where five inmates of the family were killed. In this incident all the family members were made subject to the miscreants causing cruel death. This injured witness has also named the accused and also identified this accused in the Court. The identification

was not challenged by the defence, although this witness belongs to another village. P.W. 12 Munni Rajbansh was examined in the Court on 20.1.2009 is the witness of 5th P.O. and he has named and identified this accused which was not challenged by the defence. 5th P.O. is the house of Etwaria Devi where the daughter of this witness, namely, Sheela Devi was killed. The identification was not challenged by the defence. P.W. 16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 24.1.2009 is the witness of 12th P.O. has named and claimed to identify this accused. On the date of examination all the accused represented u/s 317 Cr. P.C. As such, the claim for identification which was not challenged by the defence alone proves the factum of identification. He is the witness of 12th P.O. which is the house of Surendra Rajbansh where three persons were illed by the miscreants. 35. These four witnesses have although belongs to village Laxmanpur Bathe

has identified this accused, who is the resident of village Kamta. The identification, as stated above, was not challenged by the defence and there is no circumstance before me to disbelieve the testimony of aforesaid four witnesses. At the same time the evidences shows that this accused was present on 2nd, 5th, 7th and 12th P.O. 36. Now I take up the evidence against those accused persons, who were

named and identified by three witnesses. 37. Accused Ram Kewal Singh @ Ram Kewal Sharma, S/o Late Shital

Sharma aged about 60 years. This accused belongs to village Bathe and was idenfied and named by three witnesses in the Court room. The details discussions are as follows :-

P.W. 5 Surendra Rajbansh, who was examined on 9.1.2009 is the witness of 12th P.O. which is the house of this witness in which three persons including his wife were killed by the miscreants. This witness has named this accused and identified in the Court. Rest were represented u/s 317 Cr.P.C. to whom he claimed for identification. This witness is also of the village Bathe. The identification was not challenged by the defence as this accused was present and was identified by this witness. At the same time there is no circumstance before me as to why this witness is giving evidence against this accused. The suggestion is not there rather it confirms the identification and commission of the crime as alleged and deposed by this witness in the court on oath. P.W. 14 Sohrai Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 22.1.2009, is the witness of 11th P.O. This witness has named and claimed to identify the accused persons along with other accused. On that very day this accused was present in the Court and the defence has rather accepted the identification. There is no whisper or suggestion on the point of identification. This witness also belongs to the same village as accused is. In absence of the circumstances, the testimony of this witness can not be disbelieved. P.W. 41 Binod Paswan, who was examined in the Court on 2.4.2009, is the witness of 1st P.O. which is his own house and has stated that this accused was identified out side of his house in gathering in the torch light. This witness in his cross-examination has specifically asserted the identification and the involvement of this accused in the commission of the crime. 38. While going through the evidences of above three witnesses there is no

doubt on the point of identification and while discussing the evidences the learned defence counsel has submitted that from beginning at the earliest stage this accused has taken the plea of alibi as while he had surrendered in

the Court on 8.12.1997 in his bail petition at the very early stage has disclosed this fact that he was Teacher at Madhya Vidyalaya, Narhi and on the alleged date of occurrence he was at the said School and the village Narhi is very far away from the village Bathe. The learned defence counsel has further stressed that in bail petition which was filed before the learned sessions judge vide B.P. No. 371/98 this ground was further taken by the defence. He has further stated that while he was in custody through his son he has informed the police officials regarding the presences of him at the School at the very time of alleged occurrence. In this context this accused and his son has filed an affidavit before the Court. The learned defence counsel has further submitted that the defence has examined the defence witnesses on the point of alibi and has exhibited Ext. A the attendance register of the said School in which it discloses that this accused was present on that day at the school. P.W. 2 Mritunjay Sharma, who was also a teacher, has exhibited the School Register as Ext.-A and the signature of Ram Kewal Sharma as Ext. B. In his cross-examination he has stated that the village Narhi is very far away from village Bathe and at about 50 to 60 K.M. away. The learned defence counsel has submitted that other witnesses like Umeshwar Singh, Upendra Sharma, Dina Nath Sharma and Mukesh Kumar are the villagers of village Narhi where the school situate and the accused Ram Kewal Sharma was a teacher. 11 of them have given a circumstance that on the data of occurrence this accused Ram kewal Sharma was a teacher in the said Madhya Vidyalaya, Narhi and used to teach the boys in the morning and evening after the school hour. All the witnesses have stated that on the said date of 1/2/.12.1997 this accused Ram kewal Sharma was in the said school. As such, the learned defence counsel has given much stress on the plea of alibi so far as this accused Ram Kewal Sharma is concerned. 39. On this point the learned Special P.O. has submitted that on the one

side witnesses have identified this accused while the crime was going on. This accused was seen at different P.Os. as per the evidences i.e. at P.Os. Nos. 1,

11 and 12 not by one witness rather all the three witnesses have seen and identified this accused and these three witnesses have categorically deposed that he had seen this accused in the torch light while the miscreants were assembled. Other two witnesses have identified this accused at P.O. Nos. 11 and 12. The learned prosecutor has submitted that on the other hand the defence has adduced the defence witnesses, who had tried to explain the presence of this accused at village Narhi at the time of occurrence. On the first instance the learned Prosecutor has submitted that the defence is not in definite position to say that why three witnesses, who were of the same village, are deposing against this accused and what was the motive behind it to give false evidence. On the other hand the prosecution has got different motive regarding the dispute of wages and show of force by the accused persons against Laxmanpur Bathe villagers. 40. If the plea of defence is taken to be true for a moment then it is an

admitted fact that at the time of occurrence the accused Ram Kewal Sharma was teacher in Madhya Vidyalaya, Narhi. The occurrence has taken place in the mid night and the witnesses have identified this accused in the commission of the crime and there is no circumstance before me to disbelieve the same. Accused Ram Kewal Sharma may be a teacher of Madhya Vidyalaya, Narhi but the evidences does not show the negativity of the presence of this accused at the time of commission of the crime. 41. Accused Nandu Singh, S/o Baleshwar, aged about 50 years is of village

Laxmanpur Bathe. The evidences show that he was identified by three witnesses. He was named identified by three witnesses and the details are as below :P.W. 14 Sohrai Mahto, who was examined in the Court on 22.1.2009, is the witness of 11th P.O. which was disclosed by P.W. 85 in para 3(V) is the house of Ram Polish Mahto in which Ram Polish Mahto himself alongwith his wife Bansanti Devi and Taregani daughter of Sohrai Mahto were killed by miscreants. This witness during the course

of evidence has named and claimed to identify this accused. All the accused were represented on the said date u/s 317 Cr.P.C. and no suggestion is there on behalf of the defence particularly on the point of identification. The circumstances does not reveal to disbelieve the credibility of this witness that as to why he is naming and identifying his co-villagers this accused. P.W. 16 Ram Ugrah Rajbanshi, who was examined in the Court

on 24.1.2009, is the witness of 12th P.O., has named and claimed for identification of this accused but on that day all the accused persons were represented u/s 317 Cr. P. C. and the identification was not challenged by the defence. The identification and the circumstances these are the main ways to discover the truth. The testimony of the witness who is an eye witness, can not be disbelieved on the minor contradiction as alleged in the defence version. P.W. 1 Balwanti Devi, who was examined in the Court on

2.1.2009 is the witness of the 8th P.O. which is the house of Mahendra Choudhary in which four persons were subjected to death by killing by the miscreants. This witness Balwanti Devi, who was at the time of occurrence is 10 years old, has named this accused and during the course of evidence she has identified this accused as he was present in the court. The identification was not challenged by the defence. The truth which has come from the mouth of this witness shows the heinousness and sensibility of the crime. 42. As such these three witnesses, as stated above, had named and

identified this accused Nandu Singh in the Court and there is no adverse circumstance to disbelieve their testimony. 43. Accused Shatrughan Singh, S/o Ram Eqwal Sharma aged about 41

years, is of village laxmanpur Bathe. He was identified by three witnesses and the witnesses are of his own village. The details are as under :-

P.W.3 Laxman Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 5.1.2009, is the witness of 12th P.O. which is the house of Surendra Rajbansh. This witness has named and identified this accused In his evidence there is disclosure of involvement of this accused and the manner in which the crime was committed. The defence has not put any suggestion and also not give any circumstance to show that why this witness is deposing against this accused, who is of the same village. P.W.12 Munni Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on

20.1.2009, is the witness of 5th P.O. where five persons were killed and three empty cartridges were recovered. This witness has named this accused and claimed for identification. The accused has accepted the identification as all are represented u/s 317 Cr.P.C. The testimony of this witness cannot be disbelieved only on the point of minor contradiction. So far the crime is concerned and the involvement of this accused is taken together it cannot be disbelieved. P.W.41 Binod Paswan, who is the informant of this case was

examined in the Court on 02.4.2009 and he is the witness of 1st P.O. in which his family members were killed by the miscreants. This witness has identified this accused, who is of his own village stating therein that he was the member out side the house along with miscreants in the torch light. The testimony of this witness is not challenged on the point of identification by the defence. As such it is intact and can not be disbelieved. 43. Considering the evidences in consonance with the circumstance and

particularly on the point of identification in one side and another side defence has not challenged and also not put any circumstance before the court to disbelieve the testimony goes to strength then the evidences of all the aforesaid three witnesses against this accused.

44.

Accused Nand Singh, S/o Kameshwar Singh aged about 55 years is of

village Bathe and he was identified by Balwanti Devi, Yugal Ravidas and Binod Paswan. The details are as below : P.W. 1 Balwanti Devi, who was examined on 2.1.2009, is the

witness of her own house in which all the family members except herself were subjected to this massacre, has named the accused persons and this accused was identified by this witness in the Court. She is married lady and while she was deposing against these accused there is no circumstances before me to disbelieve her testimony. P.W. 9 Yugal Ravidas, who was examined before the Court on

16.1.2009 is the witness of 13th P.P. which is the house of Sheo Bachan Ram in which five persons were killed by the miscreants. In his evidence he has named this accused and also claimed to identify him. This claim was not objected by the defence as on that day this accused was represented u/s 317 Cr.P.C. In absence of any challenge or suggestion particularly on the point of identification the testimony of this witness can not be disbelieved. P.W. 41 Binod Paswan, who is examined on 2.4.2009, is the witness of his own home in which all his family members were killed, has named this accused and also identified but the identification was not challenged which goes to strengthen the statement of this informant. 45. If the evidences of all the aforesaid three witnesses were taken together

as against accused Nand Singh there is no major contradiction to disbelieve the testimony of the same.

46. are:-

Accused Pramod Kumar Singh, S/o Gopal sharan aged about 30 years is

of village Laxmanpur Bathe and he was identified by three witnesses and they

P.W.14 Sohrai Mahto, who

was examined before

the court on

22.01.2009, is the witness of 11th P.O. This witness has named this accused and also claimed for identification. This accused was absent on that day and was represented U/s 317 Cr.P.C. as such, the identification could not be made in the Court. At the same time the defence has also not challenged the identification as claimed by this witness against this accused. P.W. 16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 24.01.2009, is the witness of 12th, P.O., has also named and claimed to identify this accused which was not challenged. The identification is the sole evidence to disbelieve or believe the testimony of the witness. One person is claiming the identification. The miscreants and other is accepting or not challenging the identification. It alone is sufficient to believe the evidence of this witness. P.W. 41 Binod Paswan, who was examined in the Court on 02.04.2009, is the witness of his own house i.e. P.O. No. 1 and stated that at the time of occurrence this accused Pramod Kumar Singh was inside the house and committed indiscriminate firing resulting into the death of all his family members.

47.

The evidences of all the aforesaid three witnesses if taken as a whole

described the act of this accused in cruel crime in which by indiscriminate firing several persons were killed.

48.

Accused Shiv Mohan Sharma, S/o Late Mangal Singh, aged about 61

years is of village Kamta and was identified by Munni Rajbansh, Ram Ugrah Rajbansh and Binod Paswan, respectively and their details are as under: P.W. 12 Munni Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 20.01.2009, is the witness of 5th P.O., has named and identified this accused. In the Court but no suggestion was given as to why this witness is deposing against a accused who belongs to his nearby village i.e. village Kamta, Nonchallenge of identification itself is sufficient to believe the testimony of this witness.

P.W. 16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 24.01.2009, is the witness of 12th P.O., has claimed and identified this accused. Since on that very day the accused was represented U/s 317 Cr.P.C., as such, this witness has not identified this accused in the court but at the same time defence has not challenged the version regarding the identification of this accused. P.W. 41 Binod Paswan, who was examined on 02.04.2009, is the witness of 1st P.O. whis is the house of his own in which all the family members except him was assassinated by the miscreants. In his evidence he has deposed that he identified this accused out side of his house where the assemblance of other co-villagers was there. 49. After going through the evidences of all the aforesaid three witnesses

the involvement and the manner in which this accused has put himself in different P.O.s for the commission of the crime can not be disbelieved.

49.

Now I will discuss the evidence of different witnesses examined on

behalf of the prosecution, who has named and identified the accused, who are two in number. Accused Ashok Singh @ Ashok Sharma, S/o Late Ram Naresh Sharma aged about 40 years is of village Kamta and he is named and identified by P.W. 7 Subedar Ravidas and Munni Rajbansh, both are of village Bathe, The details are as follows:P.W.7 Subedar Ravidas, who belongs to village Bathe, was examined on 14.01.2009. He is the witness of 13th P.O. which is the house of Sheo Bachan Rai, where most of the family members were killed by the miscreants. This witness has named this accused and also identified him in the court. This witness belongs to village Bathe whereas the accused belongs to village Kamta. But during the course of cross-examination the defence has not put any question to disbelieve the testimony of this witness as to why he is naming and identifying the accused in the court rather what the motive behind it for giving evidence against this accused. The circumstances does not compel me to disbelieve the testimony of this witness.

P.W.12 Munni Rajbansh, who also belongs to village Bathe was examined on 20.01.2009, is the witness of 5th P.O., whis is the house of Munni Rajbansh where Sunita Kumari aged about 8 years along with other three members were killed by the miscreants. This witness has named the accused during examination and claimed to identify but on that very day i.e. on the day of evidence the accused was represented U/s 317 Cr.P.C. The defence has not put any suggestion rather has not challenged the identification claimed by this witness. There is no motive to give false evidence against this accused by the witness, as such, the testimony as a whole of this witness can not be disbelieved.

50.

Considering the evidences of above two witnesses, is taken as a whole

shows that they have named and identified this accused although they belongs to another village. There is no major contradiction to disbelieve the testimony of this two witnesses.

51.

Accused Babaloo Sharma, S/o Sri Dwarika Sharma aged about 34 years

is of village Kamta. This accused was named and identified by two witnesses Ram Ugrah Rajbansh and the informant Binod Paswan. The details of their evidence are as under:P.W.16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh, who is of village Bathe, was examined on 24.01.2009. He is the witness of 12th P.O. which is the house of Surendra Rajbanshi where three ladies were killed by the miscreants and empty cartridges were recovered from the house. This witness has named and identified this accused which was not challenged by the defence. The cross examination does not reveal to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. P.W.41 Binod Paswan, who is the informant of the case belongs to village Bathe and was examined in the Court on 02.04.2009. He is the witness of his own house i.e. 1st P.O. During the course of his evidence he has stated that he saw this accused out side of his house in the assemblance and there is identified him and that has not been challenged by the defence. On the other hand there is no circumstance which goes to show to disbelieve the testimony

of this witness.

51.

If taking as a whole the evidence of both the aforesaid witnesses the

involvement of this accused Bablu Sharma of village Kamta is not ruled out in the commission of the crime.

52.

Accused Mithilesh Sharma, S/o Vijay Sharma aged about 38 years is of

village Kamta and he was named by two witnesses, namely, Ram Ugrah Rajbansh and Binod Paswan. The details are as under:P.W.16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh, who belongs to village Bathe was examined on 24.01.2009, is the witness of P.O. No. 12 which is the house of Surendra Rajbansh where three ladies were subjected to death by the miscreants. This witness has claimed for identification and also named the accused in the commission of the crime. On the day of examination this accused was under representation U/s 317 Cr. P.C. The identification was not challenged by the defence. P.W.41 Binod Paswan, who is the informant of this case, was examined on 02.04.2009, is the witness of 1st P.O. which is his own house in which except himself all the family members were killed by the miscreants. In his evidence he has named this accused and also stated that this accused was member of the assembly out side of his house when he identified him in the torch light.

53.

If going through the evidence of these two witnesses which supports the

prosecution version, the defence has not put any circumstance by crossexamining him to disbelieve the testimony of their evidence.

54.

Accused Dharichan Singh, S/o Late Binod Prasad Singh aged about 32

years is of village Bathe and this accused was identified by Munni Rajbansh and Binod Paswan. The details of their evidences are as under:-

P.W.12 Munni Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 20.01.2009 is the witness of 5th P.O. has named and claimed to identify this accused on that very date, this accused was represented U/s 317 Cr.P.C. and during the cross-examination the identification was not challenged by the defence. P.W.41 Binod Paswan, who is the informant of the case, was examined on 02.04.2009, is the witness of 1st P.O. which is his own house and named this accused and also asserted that he identified him in the torch light while he was standing in the assembly where meeting was going on out side of his house.

54.

The evidences of both these witnesses shows that this accused was

present at the 1st P.O. and 5th P.O. and since the identification was not challenged and there is no circumstance to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses.

55.

Accused Chandeshwar Singh, S/o Kameshwar Singh aged about 40

years is of village Bathe. This accused was identified by Belwanti Devi and Yugal Ravidas. The details are being discussed as follows:P.W.1 Belwanti Devi, who was examined on 02.01.2009 belongs to village Bathe, is the witness of 8th P.O. which is the house of Mahendra Rajbansh in which except herself all the family members were subjected to death by the miscreants. She belongs to village Bathe and during the course of her examination she has not only named this accused but also claimed to identify him. On that very day this accused was represented U/s 317 Cr.P.C. The defence has not challenged the identification claimed by this witness. P.W.9 Yugal Ravidaas, who was examined on 01.06.2009, is the witness of 13th P.O. which is the house of Sheo Bachan Ram where five persons were killed by the miscreants, in this heinous crime. This witness has named and claimed to identify the accused but since the accused persons were represented U/s 317 Cr.P.C. and the defence has not put any suggestion to disbelieve the testimony of this witness.

56.

Now the evidences of both the witnesses goes to show that this accused

was present at 8th P.O. and 13th P.O. at the time of commission of the crime. The identification was not challenged and there is no motive suggested by the defence that as to why this witness is deposing against this accused.

57.

Now I will discuss the evidence of those accused, who has singally

identified by one witnesses. Accused Navin Kuamr, S/o Lallan Prasad aged about 45 years of village Chanda was identified by witness P.W.16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 24.01.2009 and he is the witness of 12th P.O. which is the house of Surendra Rajbansh where three persons were killed by the miscreants. This witness has named and identified this accused in the court. Accused Rabindra Singh, S/o Rajeshwar Singh aged about 38 years of village Jalwaiya was identified by witness P.W.4 Dudhnath Choudhary, who was examined in the court on 07.01.2009 and he is witness of 7th P.O. which is the house of Garib Chandra Choudhary where five persons were killed by the miscreants in the said massacre and out of five deceased two are minor girls, namely, Sarita Kumari aged about 5 years and Anita Kumari aged about 3 years. This witness has identified this accused in the Court. Accused Surendra Singh, S/o Ram Pyare Singh, aged about 58 years is of village Kamta and he was identified by witness P.W. 41 Binod Paswan, who was examined in the Court on 02.04.2009 is the witness of 1st P.O. which is the house of this witness where seven persons killed by the miscreants. This witness has identified this accused out side his house. Accused Sunil Kumar, S/o Sri Kamal Nayan Sharma aged about 35 year is of village and he was identified by witness P.W. 16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh, who was examined in the Court on 24.01.2009, is the witness of 12th P.O. which is the house of Surendra Rajbansh where three persons were killed by the miscreants. On the day of examination this accused was represented U/s 317 Cr.P.C. but this witness has claimed to identify this

accused. The defence has not challenged the identification claimed by this witness. Accused Pramod Singh, S/o Gopal Sharan, aged about 30 years is of village Ekabare and this accused was identified by witness 41 Binod Paswan, who was examined in the Court on 02.04.2009, is the witness of 1st P.O. which is his own house in which seven persons were killed by the miscreants. This witness had identified this accused out side the house while he was participating in the meeting along with other accused persons.

58.

As I have stated above that for the convenience to scrutinize the

evidences against the accused persons I have discussed the evidences of witnesses according to identification wise against the accused persons on the point of identification.

59.

The learned Senior Lawyer on behalf of the defence Sri Akhileshwar

Prasad has submitted that the source of light for the identification which is claimed by the witnesses and also by the informant is torch light. He has further submitted that this development is the subsequent development. The evidences of different witnesses has came regarding the torch light which was in the hand of the accused persons. The witnesses stated that they identified the miscreants in the light of torch which they had. On this point the learned lawyer submitted that it is impossible to see the face of the accused in the torch light which possessed by them. It is an admitted fact that it was dark night of December, 1997 and the prosecution witnesses could not have identified the assailants, who were in sizeable number and the alleged crime was committed in darkness.

60.

To answer this question the learned Senior Lawyer on behalf of the

prosecution has submitted that it has come in evidence and on the analysis of the scene clearly shows that most of the accused persons belongs to the same village as that of the victim and witnesses. It was, thus, not difficult for

familiar people to identify each other even in the torch light or dark night. All the witnesses have stated that they are co-villagers and they have identified by the demonoir by the conduct, by the behaviour, by the wearing and even on the shadow face of them. The admitted position is that most of the miscreants were of the same village where occurrence took place and casualty have been caused in a large scale. It is a common phenomena to identify the persons and familiar with the people to each other if they belongs to same village.

61.

I might mention the argument advanced by Senior counsel for the

defence Mr. Prasad and countered by the Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Singh. The learned Senior lawyers on the point of identification has submitted that at the earliest stage in Masalti Case it was rule of caution and well established law for the point of identification. The said rule of prudence is always required to be applied in all the cases. The identification of the accused must be in number to hold them guilty rather for conviction. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted this Masalti case reported in A.I.R. 1965 S.C. page 202 was explained and distinguished by the Honble Apex Court in the decision cited in 2002 SCC(Cri) 1220 in para-50 which is as follows:Masalti case can not be said to have laid down any rule of universal application. It is well established principle of law that evidence is to be considered on the basis of its quality and not the quantity. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a pointer in that regard. This provision follows the maxim that evidence is to be weighed and not counted. In Masalti case the desirability to have at least two witnesses has been stated to be a matter of prudence. Such a requirement can never be said to be inviolable. Appreciation of evidence can not conceive of any rule of universal application and is certainly not to be treated as a theorem, and there can be no empirical formula. The evidence on the facts of each case has to be analysed and conclusions drawn, and there can not be pigeonholing of evidence on any set formula. Since in Masalti case rule of caution was laid and not a mandatory rule of universal

application, it is certainly not to be treated as a rule of law.

62.

The learned senior lawyer has further submitted that in the said Masalti

Case the Honble Court in para-16 has well discussed and observe: not doubt but where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or more witnesses, who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical, but it is difficult to see how it can be treated as irrational or unreasonable. Therefore, we dont think that any grievance can be made by the appellants against the adoption of these tests. If at all the prosecution may be entitled to say that the seven accused persons were acquitted because their cases did not satisfy the mechanical test of four witnesses, and if the said test had not been applied, they might as well have been convicted. It is no doubt, the quality of the evidence that matters and not the numbers of witnesses, who give such evidence. But some times it is useful to adopt a test like the one which the High Court has adopted in dealing with the present case.*

63.

The learned lawyer has submitted that the important aspect is to be

considered is on the basis of quality, trust worthy of the witnesses and not the quantity.

65.

Under these guideline and observations made by the Apex Court I put

the instant case in that compass. There are fourteen(14) place of occurrence where the incident has taken place and the witnesses categorically identified the accused in the court. They have also named and claimed their identification at the time of occurrence. For example accused Girja Singh was identified by nine witnesses and he was seen at the time of occurrence while the above witnesses from the first P.O. to 13th P.O. It goes to show the involvement of this accused. The movement of him around the occurrence is

there. Similarly other examples are there. I have categorically discussed and serially numbered accused wise identification to facilitate to arrive at a conclusion. No doubt there is minor contradiction but so far as the identification is concerned the defence has not taken dare to challenge the same. Not a single question was put that identification made by the witnesses in the Court is wrong.

66.

The defence has also not suggested that why these poor persons are

identified and naming the accused persons in the court and what is motive behind. Only one motive which was taken from the earlier stage by the defence is that the political rivalry and the animosity with the ruling party Government is the main feature for false implication in this case. I will discuss this matter while I will dealthe chapter motive but so far as the question of identification is concerned the evidences of several witnesses go to inspire the confidence of the court.

67.

I shall now deal with the next limb of the oral evidence i.e. motive. This

question was regularly haunting in the mind of the court that there was a cruel and indiscriminate killing at a large scale and a number of human beings, who belongs to the poorest society was murdered with cruelty and some were injured. There are instances that all the family members were subjected to death leaving behind one or two. There is a great loss of poor life as in the war of disaster. What is the reason behind it? Was there is any strong motive to the miscreants to eliminate the entire village and it it was then what it was?

68.

The learned special O.P. answering the anxiety of this court has

submitted that the facts were disclosed by the witnesses. First there was wage dispute and second there was land dispute. Firstly I will discuss if there is any dispute of wage in between the witnesses/victims or it is only for the sake of strengthen the prosecution case.

69.

In the earlier statement of the informant in the fard-beyan it is stated

that the Members of Ranbir Sena for establishing his supremacy and existence attacked on village. During the course of evidence P.W.5 Surendra Rajbanshi in his evidence has disclosed this fact that the accused persons/landlords were giving less wages to them and they were demanding more but they do not want to give as they are the members of Harizan community. This fact first time came in the evidence before the court by this witness and similarly this fact was supported by P.W.9 Yugal Ravidas, P.W.10 Mahurati Devi, P.W.12 Munni Rajbaanshi, P.W.13 Makund Mistri, P.W.15 Chaukidar Ramanand Yadav, P.W.16 Ram Ugrah Rajbanshi and P.W.41 Binod Paswan. There is no suggestion on this point regarding the dispute of wages by the defence to any witness rather the evidences shows on this point which is consistent and believable. The accused persons are admittedly belonging to higher caste being the land lords and the victim/witnesses belongs to weaker section of the society or the labourers is beyond dispute. Prior to the occurrence the victims/witnesses had laid claim to increase wages for working in the field of the land-lords. Thus, it has raised a close cause for men of his kind and resistence came from the men in opposition, as such, this war was in between have or have not was accumulate false prestige of the person which touch the ego and resulted into the gruesome murder of 58 persons in this massacre was not a one day planning it was accumulated the result of consistent/hards so called faced by the landlords. One another fact has come before the court by P.W.13 Makund Mistry which shows that there was dispute in between the victim/witness and landlord for grabbing the land of Suryaman Upadhyay of village Lakshmanpur Bathe. The evidence shows that said Suryaman Upadhyay has got no male issue having two daughters, namely, Chandrakanti Devi and Krishna Devi leaving behind his wife Sharda Devi. It is further stated that the Suryaman Upadhyay gave one acre land to Sharda Devi but had not sold the house to any one. After the death of Suryaman Upadhyay her two daughters, namely, Chandrakanti Devi and Krishna Devi sold the land to one Awadh Singh, brother of Kawal Sarma, accused Ram Kewal Sharma @ Kawal Singh, accused Nand Singh, accused Chandra Shekhar Singh, Accused

Sidhnath Singh, accused Rajandhari Singh and Sunder Bhagwan Mahto. Further evidence gives the circumstance that above villagers have cultivated the land but the crop were harvested by the members of the Party Unity and thereafter the above villagers/purchasers have not possessed the land to whom they had purchased. This was the reason because the members of the Party Unity were in possession of the land of Suryaman Upadhyay. The evidences shows the existence of Party Unity Male, Sangram Samiti, I.P.F in one side and other side the miscreants and there is a dispute of existence of their Sangthan. These above facts although very poorly proved but gives inference and brings me to the close consideration on the point of motive to the miscreants. There was a dispute for struggle showing their supremacy.

70.

While closing this chapter I want to discuss the other factors which was

raised by the defence through suggestion to almost all the witnesses and that was the false implication by the then ruling government to the particular castemen as they have not supported the government at that time. The defence has also suggested that the accused persons are belonging to one case and i.e. Bhumiar and have not supported the then regime of the government. Some unknown criminals have committed the crime in the night and left away by crossing the River Sone. The government has taken an opportunity and best recourse to falsely implicate the members of a particular community. This fact has also tried to come by the defence regarding nonexistence of Ranbir Sena and they are not the members of said Ranbir Sena. This argument was voluntarily opposed by the Senior Special P.P. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha. He has submitted that this is wrong to say that then government was revengeful attitude against a particular casteman and he illustrate his argument by placing an incident of 13.2.1992 in which there was a caste war in between Maoist Community Centre for eliminating the organaisation, who had attacked the members of a particular community (Bhumiar) in Bara Village, Gaya in which 35 persons were killed by the miscreants in the said gruesome act. He has further submitted that the then Government has taken strong action against the militant organization MCC and a Special TADA court was established at Gaya. The accused persons were

arrested and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet and nine persons were awarded death sentence for the offence under Tada Act which was confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court. He has further argued that the present crime is in retailiation of the occurance dt. 13.2.1992 in which the members of the Poor community have slaughted the Members of Ranbir Sena (Bhumiar Community), they (M.C.C) were made accused. This crime was taken place on 1/2.12.1997 and on that very day the same Government was in existence which was on the day i.e. on 13.2.1992. The Government has taken effective steps by deputing Special P.P and conducted the trial upto the Apex Court and upto the logical end. For the Government there is no caste and creed. The law and order is above all. The persons, who committed the crime, the Government has taken task and dutifully assigned the work to the police. Under these circumstances, the Special P.P showing example tried to wash out the defence taken by the accused persons, as stated above.

71.

I feel the illustration and mode of argument done by the learned Spl.

P.P. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha was excellent one, because in the both the crime, same Government was in existence. No doubt both the crimes were shameful but, the defence has taken a very poor defence alleging the Government for their false implication being a particular caste of Bhumiar. I think there is no reason to believe it. The assailants, criminals, miscreants have got no their caste, creed any. The Society are responsible and it is expected to sacrifice the false ego which is possessed by so-called I feel that no greater sactifice for his country than Gandhi Jee did. Tkhe way of Ahinsha is the firm well to make harmony in the Society. Bihar is the land of Budha. So it is expected from others to be disciple of Budha. So it is expected from others to be disciple of Budha principle in real sense. As such the plea taken by the defence in course of suggestion is a only plea for plea shake and has no way to believe it.

72.

The other legal point hammered by the learned defence counsel

submission in his argument that there is gross misuse of the mandatory

provision which is laid down in 157 Cr. P.C. The leaned lawyer has submitted before entering into the fact concerning this subject which like to mention section 157 Cr.P.C. which is mandatory one and has to be followed by the investigating officer so that no question could be raised regarding the fairness of the investigation. He has further submitted that aspect is got more importance because the very beginning the defence has raised his voice that they were innocent and their names were planted due to ulterior motive of the then Government. In this compass the learned lawyer has argued to consider the matter.

73.

Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C.,1973 deals with the information to the police

and their power to investigate Section 157 of the said Code has laid down the procedure for investigation and it is as follows:Section 157 Sub-clause(1)Cr.P.C. lays down that if, from information received or otherwise, an officer-in-charge of Police Station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he has empowered U/s 156 Cr.P.C. to investigate, he shall forthwith sent a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person or shall depute one of his subordinate officer not below of such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order prescribe in this behalf, to proceed to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offenders.

74.

The

learned

defence

lawyer

has

submitted

that

admittedly

the

occurrence took place in between 1/2nd night of December, 1997. The Fardbeyan of the informant Binod Paswan was recorded by Officer-in-Charge, Mehandia Police Station Sri Akhilendra Kumar Singh, P.W.88. He has further submitted that the formal F.I.R. was recorded on the same day at 3 P.M. at the police station as the fard-beyan was recorded at the place of occurrence. The distance of village Bathe to Mehandia is 12 K.M. As such, the formal F.I.R.

was drawn at 3 P.M. He has further stressed that the said F.I.R. came in the court of C.J.M., Jehanabad on 04.12.1997. The delay about two days and there is no explanation and neither any explanation is required as it is mandatory one to sent it forthwith to the concerned Magistrate, only is sufficient to strengthen the argument of defence regarding the false implication of these accused persons. There is white coverave of two days and which is sufficient to define and recognize the accused persons for naming them in the fard-beyan. What was the reason that it was not send in time is the big question raised by the learned defence counsel Mr. Prasad while arguing the matter before this court.

75.

This legal argument which was advanced by the learned Senior lawyer

Mr. Prasad was countered by learned Special Public Prosecutor Senior lawyer Sri Rana Pratap Singh. He has fairly condeded that this provision, is mandatory one and any disobelience of this provision undoubtedly gave benefit to the defence. But he has strengthening his argument has submitted and but forward the circumstances which goes to show the question raised by the decence has come down. The learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that undoubtedly the Fard-beyan was recorded by P.S. 88 at the place of occurrence. So many police officers of higher rank were present there without waiting to record the formal F.I.R., they proceeded to investigate. Shri Shreedhar Mandal, who was Dy. S.P. was also present at the spot and as a senior officer and on the direction of S.P. Jehananbad he took the investigation under his shoulder and started to investigate the matter. He did firstly to take re-statement of the informant Binod Paswan and directed officer-in-charg, Mahendia Police station alongwith other police officers to prepare the dead body challans and Enquest reports and also to report the seized list of the articles which were found just around the dead bodies. In this continuation the other important things which as a human being and as a responsible police officer, he send the injured Mahesh Rajbansh, Bimlesh Rajbansh, Ramanuj Rajbansh and Muhurti Devi for their treatment to Government Hospital, Arwal. He directed to his subordinate to prepare a requisite of the injuries and deputed a person along with the injured to

Government Hospital, Arwal. The learned Prosecutor has further enlightened the matter and submitted since the deceased were 58 in nuber as such I.O. has requested the District magistrate, Jahanabad to call for the Doctors and the Post mortum be conducted at the same village. In these circumstances, the Enquest reports were prepared. The injured were sent to hospital. The evidence of the I.O.i.e. P.W.85 shows that on the same day at 16.05 hour wireless message received to him regarding the registration of the case on the basis of fard_beyan of Binod Paswan in which 26 persons were made named accused and 125 persons were unknown (Ext. 4). The evidence further shows that on the same day at 15.15 hour this I.O. consulted with the officer-incharge, sahar for the arrest of the accused persons and on the same day at 16.30 hour recorded the statement of Ram Chela Paswan and at 17 hours, Enquest reports along with supplementary case diary which was prepared on his direction and also the seizure list along with supplementary case diary was received. As such as a dutiful investigating officer at 17.45 hours has sent the seized empty cartridge, blood stained earth to the Malkhana by A.S.I. Raghuraj Kishore Pandey and again at 18 hours taken the statement of Munni Devi, Ram Ganesh Rajbansh, Munni Rajbansh and Yadubi Rajbanshi during the course of investigation at 21 hours he made attempt along with other police officer for the arrested of the named accused persons, who were found absconder. The evidence of this I.O. shows that own 2.12.1997 from 11 AM onward till 21 hours the investigation was continuously without failed without negligence was going on. The learned Prosecutor has further submitted that on 3.12.1997 again attempt was made for the arrest of the named accused persons and at 8 AM the I.O. has taken the statement of Mukut Rajbanshi, Dudhnath Choudhary, Garib Chandra, Sikandar Choudhary was taken by him and his evidence further shows that on the same day at 17.25 hour one namely, Ashok Singh was arrested by the I.O. and also seized the gun from the house of named accused Gopal Singh and the same was sent at 18.15 hours the accused and the seized articles by Sub Inspector Rajendra Pd. Choudhary to the police station on the same day at 18.30 hour took the statement of Dharmendra Yadav and Baidhnath Prasad, who were the witnesses to the Enquest report was taken and at 20.30 hours the raid was

made for the arrest for the accused. The whole night this procedure was going on and again the I.O. in his dutiful work investigated and taken the evidence on 4.12.1997 and onwards till 10.12.1997 at 19 hours when the investigation was handover to the C.I.D. and Shri M.M.A.Beg, Dy. SP was entrusted for further investigation. As such, the learned Special P.P. has submitted that the investigation started soon after the police has received the information. The police promptly proceeded to the place of occurrence recorded the fard-bayan of the informant. Sri Shree Dhar Mandal was entrusted for the investigation took investigation in his hand and directed the other police officers to assist to investigation and prepare the dead body challans and Enquest reports and also send the four injured persons for their immediate medical treatment to the Government Hospital, Arwal. This I.O. visited the different P.Os. which are 14 in numbers since 11 clock to onwards and continued the investigation, obtained the Enquest reports Post mortum reports and made raid for the arrest of the named accused persons. He has fairly submitted that no doubt that the reports should be sent to the nearest Magistrate which is mandatory provision but it could not, and the reason behind is that the investigation was going on in continuity. The Enquest had been completed, the post mortum was done and these facts have not been concealed by the prosecution. The facts itself speaks for the delay in dispatch of the said report. 76. The learned Senior special P.O has submitted that in the earlier this

matter was raised before the Honble Supreme Court and the Honble Apex Court has been pleased to observe :In the similar circumstances in A.I.R 1972 S.C. Page 2679 in para -7 which is the guideline for the Courts. Under these circumstances :Paragraph 7 : Sri Kohli strongly criticized the fact that the occurrence report contemplated by section 157 Cr.P.C was sent to Magistrate concerned very late, in_deed this challenge, like the argument of interpolation and belated dispatch of the Enquest reports was developed for the purpose of showing that the investigation was not just fair and forth right and, therefore, the prosecution case must be looked at with great suspicion. This argument is

also unacceptable. No doubt the Enquest reports reached before the Court at 6 P.M. Section 157 Cr. P.C. requires such report to be sent forthwith by the police officer concerned to a Magistrate empowered to take such offence. This really designed to keep the magistrate informed of the investigation of such cognizable offence so as to be able to control the investigation and if necessary to give appropriate direction under section 159. But when we find in this case that the F.I.R. was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that F.I.R. and there is no other infirmity brought to our notice, then however, improper an objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the magistrate concerned it can not by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted ad the prosecution insupportable. It is not the appellants case that they have been prejudiced by this delay. 77. The learned Spl. P.P. by this Honble Courts observation which is just to

fitting in this case cooled down the argument advanced by the defence lawyer. As stated above, there is no delay of single moment. The officer-incharge reached at the spot along with higher police officials recorded the fard-beyan of Binod Paswan on the direction of S.P., Jahanabad, present at the spot Sri Shree Dhar Mandal took the investigation and in a very proper and intelligent manner he described the working as required u/s 157 Cr.P.C. to the other police officers to prepare the Enquest report to see and made the injury requisition sent them to Arwal Hospital, visited the place of occurrence which are 14 in number and give the details of other surrounding police station made raid to arrest the named accused persons. The one accused was arrested on 3.12.1997 was forwarded to the Court itself speaks that police in his activeness has started the investigation. As such the delay in dispatch of the report to the concerned Magistrate on 4.12.1997 is merely an irregularity which does not show that the investigation as tainted and purcunctory one. As such, the defence taken by the accused that this was due to implicate them falsely by the then Government also comes down to the earth. The named accused person were arrested on 3.12.1997 itself is sufficient to demolish the argument of the defence. Under the above circumstances I feel that the

investigation was proper and I.O. is properly handled the situation and investigate the case. 78. As I have discussed above, Post mortum was conducted within few hour

of the occurrence. P.W. 19 Dr. Sri Nath Prasad, who was conducted the Post mortum of Malti Devi, Jaimurti Devi, Prabha Devi, Jayant Kumar, Raj Kr. Rai, Shiv Bachan Rai, Samundari Devi and Chatia Devi, total eight deceased and issued P.M. Reports as Ext. 1 to 1/7. Similarly Dr. Ashok Kumar (P.W.20) who conducted the post mortum of 10 deceased, i.e. Nanhak Choudhary, Aom Nath Choudhary, Dhanrajia Devi, Mahendra Rajbansh, Munni Devi, Jagat Choudhary, Meena Devi, Arbind Choudhary, Sumitra Devi and Sita Kumari and Post mortum was exhibited as Ext. 8 to 1/17. This P.W. 20 Dr. Ashok Kumar has also proved the signature and writing of Dr. S.P. Gupta, who was conducted the P.M. of 10 deceased and the P.M. report was Ext. 1/18 to 1/27. Similarly Dr. Mithilesh Kumar (P.S.21) who conducted the post mortum of 10 deceased i.e. Ram Prabhu, Chunnu Ravidas, Manmatia Devi, Basanti Devi, Taregni Devi, Naresh Chouhan, Ram Niwas, Chanarik, Gorakh and Shiv Kailash Choudhary and prepared the P.M. Report which was in his pen and signature marked as Ext. 1/21 to 1/37. Other doctor Mukesh Kumar (P.W. 22) who has cojducted the post mortum of 10 deceased i.e. Rajmaniya Devi, Kalawai Devi, Malti Devi, Birendra Thakur, Etwaria Devi, Domni Devi, Roopkala Devi, Sheela Devi, Sunita Kumari aged about 8 years and Chhote Lal Rajbanshi and their respectively P.M. reports are ext. 1/38 to 1/47. Lastly, Dr. Rakesh Kumar (P.W.-23) who has conducted the post mortum of 10 deceased, namely, Phul Kumar Devi, Chamiya Devi, Dhan Kumari Devi, Bishwanath Kumar, Saroj Kumari, Garib Chand Choudhary, Sanichari Devi, Sona Devi, Anita Kumari aged about 3 years, Satita Kumari aged about 5 years and their P.M. reports are Ext. 1/48 to 1/57 and, as such, total body of 58 persons were post mortumed by the above doctors. All the doctors were found fire are injuries to the body of the deceased and are of opinion that these injuries were sufficient for cause of death in ordinary course of nature. The doctors have also found incised injury in front of the neck caused by fasuli which is sharp cutting weapon against five deceased and against 53 deceased

died due to fire arm injury. The P.M. report a further shows that the time which elapsed between time of post mortum is found by the doctor were consistent with the time of occurrence and supports the prosecution case. At the same time the positive finding of the doctor, therefore, nox the bottom of truch and also strengthen the prosecution version. 79. At this place I want to discusses the evidence of those doctors who had treated and got examined the injured, who save their life in the said massacre due to grace of the God. P.S. 86 Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who was posted as Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Arbal on 3.12.1997 on that very day four injure persons were referred for medical examination. At first hand he examined all the injured one by one and give the injury reports. He examined Bimlesh aged about 10 years, S/o Lodhar Rajbanshi, Mahesh S/o Biresh Rajbansh aged about 8 years, Ramanuj Rajbansh S/o Sudhir Rajbansh aged about 28 years and issued the first injury reports as Ext. 6 to 6/3. These injured were examined on 2.12.1997 since 11.30 A.M. to 11.45 A.M.and the doctor has found prima-facie the weapon used by is fire arm and kept the opinion of the injury reserved. These injured were, as per evidence, after getting primary treatment sent to P.M.C.H. Patna for better treatment. 80. P.M. 89 Dr. S.C. Jha in his evidence he stated that Bimlesh Kumar aged

about 12 years s/o Sohar Rajbansh of village Bathe, P.S. Kamta, District Jehanabad was examined at 4.30 P.M. on the reference from Rajkiya Aushdhayala, Arwal vide Reference No. 4587 dated 2.12.1997 and found lacerated wound just below right lower eye lip, cjarring all round measuring approximately 3/4th x 1/8th x mussle deep. On pulpation a feeling that there was foreign body singulating bullet and it was taken under local anesthesoa. On the same day Dr. jitendra Prasad, who was posted as Surgical Registrar, P.M.C.H., Patna examined Mahurti Degi at 4.30 P.M. vide registration no. CRJ No. 6828 as she was referred to P.M.C.H. Patna from the State Dispensary, Arwal vide reference no. 4590 dated 2.12.1997. X-ray, andomen and pelvis shown free gas under this right hammidiaphragan. There is foreign body shadow at the level of L.I. and L.2 just below costal margin. Another foreign

body is at the chest as per BHT containing the radiological opinion under general anesthesia. Abdome opended by RPM in seisin blood sustained came out and there was perforation in assceding colon at the hepatic flexure which was closed with irrupted stitches. On the same day at 4.35 P. this witness examined Ramanuj Rajbanshi aged about 4 year by the requisition of the said Dispemsary, Arwal and issued the injury reports as Ext. 31 to 31/2. This also strengthen the argument of the prosecution regarding prompt investigation and prompt treatment of the injured. The injured Mahurti Devi, Bimlesh Kumar, Mahesh Rajbanshi and Manoj Kumar was examined on behalf of the prosecution as P.W. 10, P.W. 11, P.W. 17 and P.W. 18. If going through the evidences of these injured witnesses their presence and receiving injury by the miscreants cannot be denied. They are the best witnesses for the scene of the occurrence who has deposed. One Ramanuj Rajbanshi, who was examined by the Doctor aged about 4 years at the time or alleged occurrence, was not produced by the prosecution. The reason behind it was shown by the prosecution is that he was aged about 4 years at the time of occurrence and not possible for his to identify the accused persons. Mahurti Devi who is P.W. 10 was aged about 25 years at the time of occurrence, has given the full description of the scene. Similarly other injured Bimlesh Kumar aged about 12 years at the time of occurrence, has also ascesible witness regarding the identifying witness in the Court as well as naming them. P.W. 17 Mahesh Rajbanshi, who was at the time of examination before the Court was 17 years old naturally he was 5-6 years old at the time of occurrence, stated that a fire has hit his right leg and in that incident his mother, his elder sister, grandmother, aunt and cousin were subjected to that cruelty and fairly conceded that since he was small one as such he is not in a position to name and identify the miscreants. Similar is the evidence of P.S. 18 Manoj Kumar, who was on the day of examination was aged about 14 years, has also stated regarding receiving fire arm injury in his left leg and in the incident his mother, sister, brother and grandmother and phua were subjected to kill by the miscreants.

81. As such if the P.M. reports and the injury reports as stated above, the opinion of the doctor, who examined the injured is taken together as a whole show the positive finding in this regard and also strengthen the prosecution case. 82. The learned senior Lawyer on the behalf of the defence has further

argued one point that the accused are facing trial for the charge u/s 149 I.P.C. but either from any evidence nor there is any circumstance which connect that ht accused has got common object to commit this heinous crime. The learned counsel has further submitted that in section 141 Cr. P.C. the common object has to be specified and the existence of that object has to be proved in respect of act or the overt-act which is also an ingredient to connect the chain of common object but the witnesses has only identified the accused persons has not particularized the accused regarding their overt-act in the commission of this crime and in absence of that charge u/s 149 I.P.C. can not persist. Mere presence of unlawful assembly does not show common object of the accused persons. The learned Spl. P.P. while answering this intelligent point raised by the defence has submitted that the Honble Supreme Court vide 2005 SCC 9Cri.) 127 has fully distinguished the expression of 149 and Honble Supreme Court has given specific observation in this regard. In the said judgment of para 12 and 13 the Honble Court is of the view no thing required is that should have under stood that the assembly was unlawful and so likely to commit any of the accs which fall within the purview of section 141. Para-11 The Honble Court has been pleased to observe that an object is intended in the human mind and it is being merely mental attitude, no direct evidence can be available and like intention has generally to be gathered from the act of which person commit and result there from. The common object of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. The Honble Court further pleased

to observe it is not necessary the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one, comes into existence at the outset. The time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. An assembly which, at its commencement or even for some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become unlawful. In other words, it can develop during the course of indident at the spot eo ubstanti. The Honble Supreme Court has further observed the difference in between common object and common intention. In the said ruling what the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried out the members and the behavior of the members at or near the scene of the occurrence. 83. The leaned prosecution has submitted that in this case a huge number

of Ranbir Sena were assembled at a particular place in the dark of the night havingly deadly weapon fire arm and fasuli by the behavior of members. They were identiried by the witnesses. They have soughted slogan Ranbir Baba kee Jai although witness have not said about the overt-act except for one of the accused persons does not mean that the persons assembled in the village have got no common object. The result of their act was itself speaks of their intention was to eliminate the entire village of the particular community and for that they did it that was the night of December the winter season night everybody was sleeping in the house and unaware regarding the unfortunate events committed by the miscreants after few minutes. The miscreants assembled with torch light was on the off. They entered, hatched up a conspiracy to massacre member of a particular community. This overt-act itself shows the object which was in the mind of the miscreants. As such, the learned counsel has submitted that it can not be save to say that they are only the members of unlawful assembly and the witnesses have not disclosed the act or overt-act done by the accused persons. I feel that the argument advanced by the learned special P.P. carries weight to strengthen the object which was unlawful at the time of occurrence.

84.

Now the next Chapter to be discussed in this Bathe Sessions case is that

some accused persons are facing trial, who were neither named in the F.I.R. nor any witness has claimed to identify them at the time of occurrence. I have discussed in the previous Chapter regarding 26 accused persons, who were specifically named, and identified in the court.Total 48 accused persons were accused in this case in which accused Bhukhan Singh, S/o Late Ram Dhyan Singh and Sudarshan Sharma, S/o Late Triveni Sharma were died during the trial. Rest 46 accused persons were charged in this case in which one of the accused, namely, Anjani Kumar Singh has taken the plea of juvenility and by order of the Honble High Court his file was separated as S.Tr.No. 2B/99. As a result 45 accused persons are facing trial in which I have discussed the evidence against 26 accused persons while discussing and scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The rest 19 accused persons, whose name is below, I have examined and scrutinize the evidence against them adduced by the witness:-

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Awani Bhushan Kumar S/o Rameshwar Pandey Ram Eqwal Sharma S/o Late Ram Uttim Sharma Dharichan Choudhary, S/o Late Jeev Narain Choudhary Butan Choudhary alias Harendra Choudhary, S/o Late Late Dineshwar Choudhary Chandra Shekhar Choudhary, S/o Late Shiv Pujan Choudhary. Arbind Kumar, S/o Bed Narain Singh. Ramesh Singh, S/o Kapildeo Singh. Sri Niwas Pandey, S/o Nand Kishore Pandey. Ajay Singh, S/o Late Ram Achhit Singh. Dudul Singh, S/o Sri Bhagwan Singh Bhagelu Singh,S/o Late Radha Singh. Munshi Singh, S/o Yadunandan Singh Ranjeet Singh, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh. Saroj Rai, S/o Ram Dinesh Rai. Bhola Rai, S/o Takluraj Rai. Sidhyanath Rai,S/o Chandrama Rai.

17. 18. 19.

Suresh Rai, S/o Ram Janam Rai. Jata Singh, s/o Late Gupteshwar Singh. Hridaya Singh, S/o Late Bangali Singh

85.

The Prosecution has examined a altogether 91 witness in which 13 witnesses

are eye witness; four are injured eye witnesses, five in number are doctors who conducted the P.M. Reports, three doctors, who treated the injured, eight number of witnesses are of formal in nature, who were either proved the Enquest and seizure, sixteen witnesses also are formal in nature and no relevant for any party; thirty eight (38) witnesses are hostile in nature, two (2) police witnesses who are assisting the investigating office and two investigating officer, I have discussed the evidence of the witnesses, who are eye witnesses to the occurrence as well as injured witnesses. During the course of investigation police has investigated the matter regarding the involvement of above 19 accused persons alleging them to be the Member of Ranbir Sena and also and also tried intelligently to connect them with the occurrence. During the course of investigation the I.O. again tried the involvement of above threes accused persons prior to the occurrence and after the occurrence. But none of the witness has come before the Court to support the evidence regarding the connectivity of these accused persons in the commission of this crime. The witnesses have turned hostile. The Honble Apex Court in his judicial pronouncement cited in 2002 SCC (Cri.)1241 have shown their anxiety regarding the tendency of the witnesses turning himself as hostile. In the above judgment para -31 the Honble Court has given views. It is a matter of common experience that in the recent time there has been sharp conclusion of ethical value in public life. In developed countries much less a developing one like our, were ratio of decline is higher. Even in the ordinary course the witnesses are not inclined to depose of their evidence is not found to be credible by courts for many fold reasons. One of the reason may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the

offenders are habitual criminals or high post in the Government or close to power which may be political, economical or other powers including mussle power. A witness may understand the test of cross - Examination which may be some time because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by skillful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of crossexamination certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. Thus, these days it is not difficult to gain over a witness by money power or giving him any other allurance or giving out threats to his life and/or property at the instance of persons, in/or close to powers and mussle man or their associates-Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain in different. It is most unfortunate that expert witnesses and the investigating agencies and other agencies developed an important role to play are also not immune from decline of value in public life. Their evidences some times become doubtful because they do not act sincerely, take everything in casual manner and are not able to devote proper attention and time. 86. The learned Special P.P. has submitted that no doubt witnesses, who have

supported the prosecution case at the time of statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. before the police have denied before the court on oath. At the same time he has submitted that the Honble Court while observation Mohan Singh Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1999 CC (Cri.) 261 it was held that the courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out of the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefits of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment

suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on one hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot-free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused. 87. The learned defense lawyer while arguing the testimony and credibility of the

hostile witness has submitted that they are well aware of the principle that the Court has in his permissible limit removed the chaff from the grain but the duty of the court should be judicious and onorous in nature. The role of the police and even in Indian System the learned defense lawyer has submitted that is known to all. Police has picked up to or three persons belongs to the respective village of the accused and taken their statement in case diary in routine and mechanical manner as quorum to investigate the case and when these witnesses came before the court and has taken oath to depose the truth, have denied the previous statement of the own as alleged to be recorded by then I.O. The learned defense lawyer has further submitted that none of the witnesses, who were produced on behalf of the prosecution particularly as and against the above 19 accused persons have not supported the prosecution story as alleged by the prosecution. During the course of argument he has fairly conceded that there is village Belaur in Bhojpur district wherein majority of Bhumihars, Brahmins are residing. There is a statue of Ranbir Baba and on every year in October it has come that there is anniversary of said Ranbir Baba but the learned lawyer has contended that not a chit of paper during the course of investigation the police has procured that these above 19 accused persons are of the members of so-called banned organization Ranbir Sena. No doubt they are of Bhumihar caste. As such, being belonging to Bhumhar caste they were supposed that they are the members of Ranbir Baba, although in their statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C they have imphatically denied the Ranbir Sena and Member of Ranbir Sena. He has further submitted that it is well settled that in a criminal trial the credible evidence of even a solitary evidence is a form of basis of conviction and even half a dozen witnesses may not form such a basis unless their evidence is found to be trust worthy of their evidence. None of the witnesses has come before the Court regarding direct of indirect involvement of these accused persons either in conspiracy or in commission of the crime.

88.

In the context I will peruse and discuss the different witnesses examined on P.W. 33 Ram Roop Ram belongs to village Laxmanpur Bathe, has accepted the

behalf of the prosecution against above 19 accused persons:occurrence but has not disclosed the involvement of any of the accused in his evidence. He was declared hostile and his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. was contradicted by P.W. 91 in Para-35. He has clearly stated that police has not taken his own statement. P.W. 34 Dhukhan Choudhary has also not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile and his contradiction was taken by P.W. 91 Vide Para -36. P.W. 35 Baleshwar Singh, who is a Chowkidar, has also not supported the prosecution version, turned hostile as he has not named any one and his contradiction was taken by P.W. 91 Para-36. P.W. 36 Ram Dhari Singh, who is a Chowkidar, at the time of incident has also not supported the prosecution version, and his contradiction was taken by the prosecution through P.W. 91 Para-37. P.W. 37 Shri Bhagwan Singh, turned hostile and not supported the prosecution version, and his contradiction was taken by P.S. 91 Para-38. P.W. 38 Butti Ram, has not supported the prosecution case. He has stated that Dharichan Choudhary is his landlord but other version was denied and his and his contradiction was taken by P.W. 91 Para-39. P.W. 39 Dashrath Ram, has also not supported the prosecution case and his contradiction was taken by P.W. 91 Para-41. P.W. 40 Jaipati Paswan, has not supported the prosecution case. In his crossexamination he has stated that every year anniversary of Ranbir Baba is performed in the village Belaor. His contradiction was taken by P.W. 91 Para-42. P.W. 42 Sidhnath Paswan, has also not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile. His contradiction was taken by P.W. 91 Para-42. P.W. 43 Ram Nath Ram, has also not supported the prosecution case of the prosecution and was turned hostile. His contradiction was taken by P.W. 91 Para-44. P.W. 44 Omkar Tiwary, P.W. 45 Ayodhya Singh, P.W. 46 Ram Naresh Kahar, P.W. 48 Bira Sao, P.W. 50 Hirdya Sao, P.W. 51 Tes Lal Choudhary, P.W. 52 Siya Ram

Choudhary, P.W. 53 Gopi Chandra Singh, P.W. 54 Ram Nath Singh, P.W. 55 Awdhesh Chamar, P.W. 57 Banshidhar Sharma, P.W. 58 Bhagra Sao, P.W. 60 Ram Chandra Ram, P.W. 65 Dashrath Sharma, P.W. 66 Surendra Prasad, P.W. 67 Kashi Sao, P.W. 71 Rajan Ram, P.W. 72 Hari Narain Ram, P.W. 73 Amir Chandra Ram, P.W. 75 Sipahi Rai, P.W. 77 Shiv Shankar Ram, P.W. 78 Gupteshwar Singh @ Kahar, P.W. 81 Purnamasi Ram. P.W. 82 Raj Kumar Rai, P.W. 84 Nathu Prasad Tatani, they all have not supported the prosecution case and whose contradictions were taken in the evidence of P.S. 91 till para66. From their evidences it has come that in the Bhumihar community the persons are landlords and there is structure of Ranbir Sena in their community but the prosecution has failed to prove that any pre-meeting of mind before the commission of this heinous crime was in between the members of Ranbir Sena having a landed property does not mean for the involvement of them in the crime. The police during the course of investigation tried regarding the criminal antecedent of some of the accused but has not disclosed what those criminal antecedents are? In absence of cogent and credible evidence the criminal antecedent is not a evidence to hold the accused persons have committed the crime. 89. The learned Special P.P. although half heartedly made argument against the

above 19 accused person but has submitted that these accused persons are the members of Ranbir Sena, who are present at the time of occurrence and after commission of the crime they have shouted slogan Ranbir Baba ke Jai. He has further submitted that although none of the witnesses have identified nor there is any cogent and positive evidence to show that these accused persons are having involvement in any way of the manner either direct or concpired before commission of the occurrence. 90. The learned defense counsel argying on behalf of the above 19 accused

persons has submitted that surmises and conjectures the feeling are not sufficient to hold an accused guilty for the commission of the crime. He has submitted that it is well observed in 1991 (1) SCC at page 254-255 in para 3 4 the settled principle and the Honble Court has observed. But sentiment or commission, however strong, are neither relevant nor have any place in a Court of law. Acquittal or conviction depends on proof

or otherwise of the criminological chain which invariably comprises of why, where, when, how and who. 91. I agreed with the argument of the learned defense lawyer on this point. The

involvement of above 19 accused persons may be there by way of conspiracy but it can not be placed as a strong proof to hold them quilty. 92. Before closing these two important chapter I must say about my heart feelings

why this massacre in the country particularly in Bihar? We have heard Belchi, Senari, Bara, and this Laxamanpur Bathe massacre. This shows that there is strong gap in between the two i.e. equal and unequal. The fights is in between have and have not, poor and rich class of the society having false ego in respective of the times both take stronger role for commission of these massacre once upon a time the poorest class of the society under the banner of M.C.C. and another time under the banner of any other banned community society would them over it. So far as the social reformer has to come forward to meet out the social imbalance to meet the peace and harmony in the society. In every massacre the subjected people begging for their life with their tear but could not spared themselves. In my view when human tears could not satisfy or able to bridge the gap in between the two and the whim of the so-called desperate persons then how it can be fulfilled by the human blood. This is a question to be think by the society at a large and make the solution for future in this regard. 93. This court is fortunate having trust of the Honble court for the disposal of this

unfortunately historical incident. I took up the challenge with the assistance of the learned lawyers of Patna Bar Association as well as the learned Senior lawyers of Patna High Court, with the assistance of them 91 witnesses were examined on day to day basis which begin from 02.01.2009, Doctors were examined, different I.Os were also examined before the court. I must say the promising two junior lawyers, namely, Mr. Vidyanand and Mr. Sunil Kumar, who extended their co-operation to the court to facilitate the Courts functioning and also to arrive at a definite conclusion. The assistance and co-operation of other senior lawyers who enlightened the Court on factual and legal aspect was a tremendous job. I must say the same to my Bench Clerk Sri Manmohan Srivastva and Stenographer Sushil Kumar Gupta, who have by their

hard working and honestly and for maintaining confidentiality in the disposal of this sessions case. Sri Srivastva has managed the record properly which has helped me a lot while dictating the judgment to my stenographer. 94. From the evidence adduced it has been simply proved that the accused persons

(twenty six) named above who belongs to band organization Ranbir Sena hatched up a conspiracy to this massacre by members of one particulars community in the village Laxmanpur Bathe. Pursuant to the conspiracy hatched up the militant of different groups went to different houses of the village with fire arm, broke upon the door of the house of the members of a particular community in the dead night of December, 1997. They were most helpless in condition in which they could not take the recourse to save their life. Most of them were done to death by fire arm and some were done to death by chopping off their neck. There could not be any manner of doubt that the villagers were done to death by these miscreants and they have disturbed the normal tempo of life and created terror in the mind of a particular community and subjected to kill 58 persons in the incident either by fire arms or by fasuli. The evidence of eye witnesses is found cogent, convincing and credible and there is no scope to disbelieve the same. The investigating officer Sri Shree Dhar Mandal has promptly investigated leaving no scope of doubt is also appreciable chapter. The doctors who did the post mortum in the said village and the positive finding given by them also strengthen the prosecution version. So far as 19 accused persons are concerned which I named and dealt with in the second chapter there is lack of evidence to hold them quilty. 95. During the course of a argument the the learned lawyer on behalf of the defense

has cited to the judicial pronouncement of the Honble Apex Courtl and they are Supreme Court cases (1984) 4 page 116, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. page 216, A.I.R. 1975 page 216, A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court page 989, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. page 1382, 1993 (1) SSC page 20, 1991 Cr. L.J. page 15, 1195 (3) SCC page 367, 1995 (1) P L J R, S.C. 63, 2002(1) SSC page 487 and A.I.R. 1978 S.C. page 1647. At the same time the learned Special P.P. has cited judicial pronouncement as 1998 SSC (Cri.), 886, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. Page 131, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. page 2679, 2009 (1) P L J R page 484l, 2009 (10) SCC page773, AIR. 1993 SC page 1544, AIR 2009 SC page 1271, 2005 (3) SCC page 114, 2002 (6) SCC page 81, 2005 SSC (Cri.) page 127 and AIR 1965 SC page 202. I

respectively gone through the entire observation made by the Honble Apex Court while considering the factual and legal aspect of this case and I tried my best to put them under the four corner of the provisions where they are fitting. The decisions cited by both sides are guide line for the disposal of this case. I tried my best according to my legal acumen, considering the evidence under the preposition of legal framework and conclude the trial. It is, therefore, O R D E R I convict, the following accused: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Girja Singh, S/o Late Patiram Singh Surendra Singh S/o Mahadeo Singh Ashok Singh S/o late Indradeo Singh Gopal Sharan Singh S/o late Awadhesh Singh Baleshwar Singh S/o Parshuram Singh Dwarika Singh S/o late Ram Naresh Singh Bijendra Singh S/o late Dudhyanath Singh Nawal Singh S/o late Ram Bhajan Singh Balram Singh S/o late Awadhesh Singh Nandu Singh S/o Baleshwar Singh Shatrughan Singh S/o Ram Eqbal Sharma Nand Singh S/o Kameshwar Singh Pramod Kr. Singh S/o Gopal Sharan Dharichan Singh S/o late Binod Pd. Singh Chandeshwar Singh S/o Kameshwar Singh Ram Kewal Singh @ Kawal S/o late Shita Sharma Dharma Singh S/o late Shiv Singh Shiv Mohan Sharma S/o late Mangal Singh Ashok Sharma S/o late Ram Naresh Sharma Babloo Sharma S/o Dwarika Sharma. Mithilesh Sharma S/o Vijay Sharma Navin Kumar S/o Lallan Pd.

23. 24. 25. 26.

Ravindra Singh S/o Rajeshwar Singh Sunil Kumar S/o Kamal Nayan Sharma Pramod Singh S/o Late Sankh Singh Surendra Singh S/o Ram Pyar Singh. For the charge u/s 147, 148, 302/149 read with section 120B I.P.C. 460 I.P.C.,

307/149 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act as well as u/s 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The aforesaid According they are taken into custody. I acquit, the following accused. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Dharikshan Choudhary S/o late Jeev narain Choudhary Butan Choudhary @ Harendra Choudhary S/o Dineshwar Choudhary Chandra Shekhar Choudhary S/o late shiv Pujan Choudhary Arvind Kumar S/o Bed Narain Singh Ramesh Singh S/o late Kapildeo Singh Sri Niwas pandey S/o Nand Kishore Pandey Ajay Singh, S/o late Ram Achhat Singh Dudul Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh Bhagelu Singh S/o late Radha Singh Munshi Singh S/o Yadhunandan Singh Ranjeet Singh S/o late Bhuneshwar Singh Saroj Rai @ Saroj Singh S/o Ram Dinesh Rai Bhola Rai S/o Takuluraj Rai Sidhyanath Rai S/o Chandrama Rai Suresh Rai S/o Ram Janam Rai Jata Singh S/o Late Gupteshwar Singh Hridaya Singh S/o late Bengali Singh Awani Bhushan Kumar S/o Rameshwar Pandey Ram Eqbal Singh S/o Ram Uttim Sharma. Section 120B I.P.C. 27 Arms Act and u/s 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atfofities) Act. The aforesaid accused are on bail and, as such, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. accused persons are on bail.

Dictated & corrected by me. 1st. Addl. Session Judge, Patna. 07.04.2010 1st. Addl. Session Judge, Patna. 07.04.2010

ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE. 07.04.2010 1.The learned lawyer on behalf of the convicts submitted that it is the first offence and no previous conviction has been brought before this court so a lenient view be taken in awarding the sentence. The learned lawyer further submitted that it is not the case of rarest of rate in which capital punishment is required. 2. On the other hand the learned Special P.P. submits that in view of the gravity of the offence in which a large number of poor person of a particular community were eliminated by these convicts. The offence is so serious and cruel in nature which shows that by the conduct of these convicts 58 persons were murdered, who were helpless persons. 3. The convicts were found guilty for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. alongwith other sections of I.P.C. as well as under Arms Act and U/s 5(2)(v) of scheduled castes/scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocitiex) Act. The punishment prescribed under 302 I.P.C. is either death punishment or imprisonment for life and fine. It is settled principle that imprisonment for life is a rule and death punishment is exceptional one. I will discuss the circumstance as well as the guidelines of the Honble Apex Court while considering the sentences to be awarded to accused convicts whether it is a case of death sentence or the case of imprisonment for life. 4. First of all the Honble Apex Court while observing in Machhi Singh case 1983 SCC (Criminal) 681 where it was held by the Honble Apex Court that in rerest or rare case when the collective conscience of the community is so shocked, that it will expect the holders of the Judicial power centre to inflict

death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability of otherwise of retaining death penalty/death sentence can be awarded. The community may entertain such sentiment in the following circumstances :i. When the murder is committed in an extremely brutul, gootesque, disholocal, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. ii. When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness i.e. murder by hired assassin for money or reward, or cold blooded murder for gains of a person vis--vis whom the murderer is in dominating position or in a position of trust or murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland. iii. When murder of a member of a scheduled caste or minority community etc. is committed not for personal reason but in circumstances which arouse social wrath or in cases of bride burning or dowry death or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dlwry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation. iv. When the crime is enormous in proposition. For instance when multiple murders say all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community or locality are committed. v. When the victim of murder is an innocent child or helpless women or the inform person of a person vis-vis whom the murders is in a dominating position or

a public figure generally loved and respected by the community. 5. The Honble Apex Court has further held that the following guidelines

which emerges from Bachhan Singh case will have to be applied to the facts and each individual case where the question of imposition of death sentence arises. i. The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. ii. Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the offender also requires to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the crime. iii. Life Imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. Death sentence must be imposed only when live imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided the option to impose sentence or imprisonment for life can not be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances. iv. A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances has to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.

6.

Now it is settled principle of law that death sentence has to be imposed

only life imprisonment appears to be an almost inadequate punishment. As it has come in the evidence by way of argument that Lakshmanpur Bathe massacre was in retaliation of Bara Massacre in which the member of the community of the deceased were made an accused and the member of the community relating to the accused and the member of the community relating

to the accused side were subjected to kill in that massacre. The learned Special P.P. has cited and produced the photo-copy of the said judgement which was confirmed upto the Honble Supreme Court as reported in 2002 SCC (Cri.) Page 1220 in which the learned District Judge has awarded the death sentence to convicts which was confirmed by the Honble High Court and lastly by the Honble Apex Court. The Honble Supreme Court while deciding the Bara Massacre put the instant case of rarest of rare and death penalty imposed by the lower court as well as the Honble High Court was confirmed. I feel that since the fact of that case is some how related with this case. So before evaluating and weighing the reasons in comparison with Bara Massacre.

7.

There was a gruesome carnage in which 35 persons of a particular

community in the State of Bihar lost their life. According to the fard-beyan recorded on 13.02.1992 discloses that in night at 9.30 P.M. while the informant Surendra Kumar Shama was about to go to bed all on a sudden opened the door on hearing the sound of indiscriminate firing and explosion of bomb. He became terrorized and found the village ablaze. In the mean-time a mob consisting of 10-15 unknown persons arrived at his house, and started knocking the door. On of such person stated that they had come to apprehend Dayanand and Hardwar Singh as according their information, both of them were in one of the house of that village. Upon which informant opened the door out of fear and those unknown persons took him near the temple situated on the south plank of the village where he found the father, two uncle, and four brother amongst others. All these persons were kept with their hand tied at the back. Some 50-60 unknown persons being variously armed were guiding the villagers. Hands of the informant were also tied and he was also asked to sit there. The unknown terrorist formed several groups which consisting of 15-20 persons and each group used to go to village and bring the villagers. In the presence of the informant Lalesh Singh alias Nawlesh Singh, Lal Singh, Shree Kant Singh and Rama Kant Singh were also brought from the village. One of the terrorist was stating that no male member should be alive in the village. In the mean-time the female folk including the wives of

persons Sushan Singh, Ramesh Singh, Nagina Singh, Kakhan Singh arrived there weeping at that time Sushan Singh, Mithilesh Singh, Eqwal Singh, Upendra Singh were also brought and their hands were also tied. At that time 5-6 terrorist including Mahendra Ravidas, Yugal Ravidas stated that their leader Kirani had directed to take all the villagers near the bridge of canal. One terrorist who was addressed as Manesha Jee asked the four female to go to their houses. Thereafter villagers were taken near the Canal where they were kept confined and their hands and legs tied. In the mean-time informant heard the sound of firing coming from the southern side of the village and in the light of fire he identified several accused persons including the appellants naming all of them. The terrorist slittered the villagers by cutting their neck with the help of Fasuli which is a sharp cutting weapon. In the mean-time the terrorist having guessed the arrival of police, started fleeing away whereby any how the informant could save his life. The police with the informant went to the place of occurrence and found 35 persons named in the fard-beyan and some persons having serious injuries, who were immediately sent to the hospital for treatment. It has been alleged in the Farde-beyan that the terrorists were armed with police rifles and some of them were in police uniform. The terrorist were 500 in number and out of which about 200-300 were armed with deadly weapon and they shouted slogan of Maoist Community Centre Jindabad and amongst themselves they had came to eliminate the persons belonging to one particular community which was object of unlawful assembly and they wanted to take revenge (2002 SCC(Cri.) Page 1220 Para-3).

8.

The similar situation is in this Sessions Trial also. From the evidences

adduced it has been amply proved that the convict persons, who belongs to a particular community under the banner of a particular community i.e. Scheduled caste community in village Lakshmanpur Bathe. In pursuance to the conspiracy hatched up by them the convicts formed different group and went the different houses in village with fire arm, broke upon the doors of the houses of the members of a particular community. The black night was of the Night of December i.e. cold night where poor persons are in most helpless

condition and they could not take resource to save their life. Most of them were done to death by fire arm and some of them necks were chopped off. This carnage has changed all of a sudden the balance of the society, the faith and the brotherhood, the harmony became in shacky position and resulted the abnormal tempo of individual life. The incident shows that the convicts had no eyes of mercy while the mother of the informant and similarly other injured were begging their life but their tear could not help them. They received injury and left the world. What was the fault of one Sita Kumari, who was unmarried sister of Munni Devi and daughter of Kapoor Chandra of another village to Ojhabigha, who was subjected to death. Her fault is that she is the guest of her own siste Munni Devi and came to her sisters sasural to enjoy the life, her life could be saved if she could have not come in the village of her sister in that black night. What was the fault of Sunita Kumari aged about 8 years, Vishwanath Ravidas aged about 8 years, Anita Kumari aged about 3 years. Sarita Kumari aged about 5 years, Om nath Choudhary aged about 8 years, Sumitra Kumari aged about 2 years and Jayant Kumar aged about 10 years. Their fault was that they took their birth in that village. They have not properly seen the light of the Sun. they have not enjoyed the moon light, the village life and also rest of the life for which they have come to this earth. There are two tenagers. They dont know the community was but the indiscriminate firing never saved their life. The miscreants never considered their age. Similarly Sheela Devi, Chania Devi, Saroj Kumar and Raj Kumar Rai were the deceased, who were in the second step of their life. They have attained the age of 18 to 20 years. I think that they are daughter, son or daughter-in-law of that village. The act of the miscreants was so thrilling if one can imagine the situation in the mind. If I considered the gravity and the sensitivity of the Bara Massacre to this Lakhsmanpur Bathe Massacre the facts are the same. No one can distinguished the graver and lesser act of the miscreants. The only distinguishing feature is that in the former case 35 persons were subjected to death and in the present case 58 pesons were killed by the convicts. The Honble Apex Court after considering the guidelines has observed it could be a mockery of justice if death sentence is not imposed in the present case.

9.

The convicts were found guilty for the offence u/s.302/149 read with

section 120B I.P.C, the manor offence along with other charges of I.P.C as well as under Arms Act and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The common object of all the convicts are to eliminate a particular community of Lakshmanpur Bathe and in furtherance of their common intention they assembled armed with deadly weapon, fire arm and Fasuli committed their misdeeds resulted the massacre. As such all the convicts are liable to equal sentences but the evidences shows that no doubt the convicts are member of unlawful assembly with their common object they had acted but the act of the some of convicts are more graver than others. So far as the ends of justice the sentence should be awarded in that stratum. As I have already stated above, there are only two punishment are provided for the charges U/s 302 I.P.C. death and imprisonment for life. I think that it is depended upon the conduct and the act of the convicts while commission of crime. So in my view the persons, who was aggravated and actively participated for the commission of the crime should be awarded graver sentence in comparison with other.

10.

For example Girja Singh, who was identified by nine witnesses,

Surendra Singh, S/o Late Indradeo Singh was identified by six witnesses, Gopal Sharan Singh, Baleshwar Singh, S/o Parshuram Singh, Dwarka Singh S/o Late Ram Naresh Singh, Dharma Singh, S/o Late Shiv Singh, Bijendra Singh, S/o Late Dudhyanath Singh, Nawal Singh, S/o Late Ram Bhajan Singh, and Baliram Singh, S/o Late Awadhesh Singh were identified by four witnesses, Shiv Mohan Sharma, S/o Late Mangal Singh, Nandu Singh, S/o Baleshwar Singh, Shatrughan Singh, S/o Ram Eqwal Sharma, Nand Singh, S/o Kameshwar Singh, Ram Kewal Sharma S/o Late Sita Singh, and Pramod Singh, S/o Gopal Sharan Singh were identified by three(3) witnesses during the commission of crime. All these above accused-convicts were seen from P.O. No. 1 to P.O. 13 which goes to show that through out they were moving one place to other to mitigate the circumstances that the life of the particular

community may not escape to save. The act and the misdeeds of these accused convicts are more serious and cruel in comparison of other accused persons.

11.

Convicts Ashok Sharma S/o Late Ram Naresh Sharma, Babloo Sharma,

S/o Late Dwarika Shama, Mithilesh Shama, S/o Vijay Sharma, Dharichan Singh, S/o Late Binod Prasad Singh, Chandrashekhar Singh, S/o Kameshwar Singh were identified by two witnesses and accused convict Navin Kumar S/o Lallan Prasad, Ravindra Singh, S/o Rajeshwar Singh, Sunil Kumar, S/o Kamal Nayan Sharma, Pramod Singh, S/o Late Sankh Singh and Surendra Singh, S/o Ram Pyare Singh of village Itwari were identified by single witness. So their conducts are lesser in footing for the ends of justice the lesser sentence should be awarded.

12.

On taking into the above consideration, all the facts and further in view

of the principle laid down in Bachhan Singh case (cited Supra) and Machhi Singh case and the fact that the convicts are under the above following circumstances need severe and detterent punishment so that in further no one can dare to take law in their own hand or any other organisation or banned organisation should take lession by this detterent punishment. The following convicts:1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Girja Singh, S/o Lae Patiram Singh Surendra Singh, S/o Mahadeo Singh Ashok Singh, S/o Late Indradeo Singh Gopal Sharan Singh, S/o Late Awadhesh Singh Baleshwar Singh, S/o Parshuram Singh Dharma Singh, S/o Late Shiv Singh Dwarika Singh, S/o Late Ram Naresh Singh Bijendra Singh, S/o Late Dudhyanath Singh Nawal Singh, S/o Late Ram Bhajan Singh

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Baliram Singh, S/o Late Awadhesh Singh Shiv Mohan Sharma, S/o Late Mangal Singh Nandu Singh, S/o Baleshwar Singh Pramod Singh, S/o Gopal Sharan Shatrughan Singh, S/o Ram Eqwal Sharma Ram Kewal Sharma @ Kawal, S/o Late Shita Singh Nand Singh, S/o Kameshwar Singh

are sentenced to death for the offence u/s 302/149 read with section 120B I.P.C. and it is directed that they have hanged by neck till their death. These convicts are further sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year U/s 147 I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for 2 year U/s 148 I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for five(5) years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- U/s 460 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/U/s 307/149 I.P.C. The convicts are further sentenced to undergo one(1) year rigorous imprisonment U/s 27 of the Arms Act and also one(1) year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- U/s 3(2)(v) of Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. All the sentence shall run concurrent. Their proceeding for death sentence be sent to the Honble High Court for confirmation in view of section 366 Cr.P.C. Also send a copy of this judgement to District Magistrate, Patna for information. The following convicts:1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Ashok Sharma S/o Late Ram Naresh Sharma Babloo Sharma, S/o Dwarika Sharma Mithilesh Sharma, S/o Vijay Sharma Dharichan Singh, S/o Late Binod Prasad Singh Chandeshwar Singh, S/o Kameshwar Singh Navin Kumar, S/o Lallan Prasad Ravindra Kumar, S/o Rajeshwar Singh

8. 9. 10.

Surendra Singh, S/o Ram Pyare Singh Sunil Kumar, S/o Kamal Nayan Sharma Pramod Singh, S/o Late Sankh Singh

in the light of the above submission it is true that evidence against these convicts are the same which are against above 16 accused Girja Singh and others but in the light of the above discussion they would be entitled for penal justice and it would not be appropriate to impose extremes penalty of death to them. Accordingly sentences to life imprisonment U/s 302/149 read with section 120B I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each. They are further sentenced to undergo for a period of one(1) year U/s 147 I.P.C. sentence to undergo R.I. for two years U/s 148 I.P.C. sentence to undergo R.I. for five(5) years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence U/s 460 I.P.C. and further sentences to undergo R.I. for 10 years U/s 307/149 I.P.C. and fine of Rs. 25,000/- each,. All the aforesaid convicts are further sentenced to undergo 1(one) year for the offence U/s 27 Arms Act and further undergo R.I. for one yea and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each u/s 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. All the sentences will run currently.

13.

Considering the act, nature of the cruelty it is clearly held that the

sentence for life would ensure till the life time of the deceased, as it is not possible to fix a particular period of prisoners death. As such it is made clear that the sentence of imprisonment for life means a sentence for the entire life of the prisoners. No doubt there is a provision for remission of the period of prisoners within the discretion of the appropriate Government but it is not a matter of right. I expect the Government while considering at any time if any remission imposed must & should considered the conduct, cruelty and the afterwards effect in the society. I further stress that the sentence would ensure till the time of the prisoner. The fine imposed to the convicts after realization be distributed amongst the deceased family for their rehabilitation and for their livelihood.

Dictated & corrected

by me.

1st Addl.Sessions Judge, Patna 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna 07.04.2010 07.04.2010