1. On the intervening night between 14th and 15th December, 1986, a ghastly incident took place in village Singhyahi, district Darbhanga wherein allegedly a mob of about 50 persons armed with bhalas, gadasas, lathis and churns attacked the house of the complainant, caused damage to the property and opened an indiscriminate assault on the complainant party with the several weapons with which they were armed. It was a moonlight night. The first informant Kari Yadav (PW-8) claims to have identified 21 accused persons. The incident claimed the life of 3 persons assaulted by the accused persons and left several others injured. Upon the first information of the incident having been lodged with the police, usual investigation commenced leading to a chargesheet being filed against 22 accused persons. They were charged severely for offences under Sections 302, 302/149, 147, 148 and 452 IPC. The trial court has upon a meticulous examination of the evidence held that as against 12 of the accused persons, the prosecution case was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore they were entitled to acquittal. Ten accused persons were held liable to be convicted variously. In the opinion of the trial court charge under Section 452 IPC was made out successfully by the prosecution against all the 10 accused persons whereunder they were sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years each. As against accused No. 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 16 (7 in number) charge under Section 302/149 held to have been made out. Accused Nos. 10, 13 and 20 (3 in number) were held liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC. For these offences the accused persons found guilty have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Charge under Section 148 IPC was held to have been proved against accused Nos. 9, 10, 13, 16 and 20 while charge under Section 147 IPC was held to have been proved against accused Nos. 1, 4, 6, 8 and 11. For the offence under Section 148 IPC the trial court sentenced each of the accused persons found guilty to RI for 2 years. For the offence under Section 147 IPC the accused persons found guilty have been sentenced to RI for 1 year each. All the sentences have been made to run concurrently.
2. The convicted accused-appellants preferred in all three appeals in the High Court which have been disposed of by a common judgment. The division bench of the High Court having made its own independent evaluation of the evidence found no fault with the finding of guilt as arrived at by the trial court. In the opinion of the division bench all the 3 appeals were devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed and have been dismissed accordingly upholding the conviction and sentences passed by the trial court.
3. These appeals have been preferred by special leave by all the 10 accused-appellants. One of the accused persons convicted by the trial court and the High Court, namely, Asheshar Yadav, died when the petition for special leave was pending and by order dated 23.2.2001 this Court directed his petition to be dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. As to the remaining 9 accused-persons the leave has been granted.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties who have taken us through the judgments of the trial court and the High Court as also through the evidence of all the material and relevant witnesses. According to the prosecution, there were 8 eye witnesses and they were tendered in the witness box. Out of these, PWs 5 and 6 turned hostile and did not depose to anything relevant. Their testimony has been excluded from consideration by the trial court and the High Court. As to Bhaddar Sahni (PW-4) the trial court formed an opinion that he had given a highly exaggerated version of the incident which stood contradicted by his own earlier statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and therefore, he was a witness who could not be relied on. The opinion of the trial court as to this witness has been upheld by the High Court. However, there are other eye witnesses, Faguni Sahni (PW1), Mangu Sahni (PW-2), Ram Khelawan Sahni (PW-3) and Kari Yadav (PW-8) who also claimed to have been injured in the incident. Unfortunately, the doctor who had medico-legally examined these injured eye witnesses died and, therefore, could not be examined at the trial by the prosecution. However, the medico-legal certificates issued by the doctor have been tendered in evidence and formally proved. The trial court has criticised the testimony of Faguni Sahni, Mangu Sahni and Ram Khelawan Sahni, PWs. 1, 2 and 3 and held that they were not likely to be the witnesses for the incident of murder of the 3 victims. However, the High Court has made its own independent evaluation of the testimony of these 3 witnesses and held that so far as PW-3 is concerned he cannot be considered to be wholly reliable witness though part of his testimony to the extent to which his testimony stands corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses can be read in evidence and relied on. So far as Bilti Devi (PW-7), though not injured in the incident, and Kari Yadav (PW-8) are concerned the trial court and the High Court have both chosen, to place reliance on their testimony holding them to be the natural witnesses to the incident and also reliable to the extent of the 10 accused-persons found guilty.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length, who laboured hard to demonstrate how in his submission the court ought not to place reliance on the testimony of these witnesses, we find ourselves not persuaded to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. The trial court and the High Court have rightly observed that there were about 50 assailants out of whom 21 were identified and hence named in the FIR and after subjecting the ocular evidence to rigorous scrutiny their testimony could be believed and pointing out positively to the involvement of the 10 accused appellants and their participation in the incident was proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Having read the judgments of the two courts and having ourselves scrutinized the evidence of these eye witnesses, we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the High Court as to the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be assigned to be assigned to their testimony. As to the witnesses who are themselves injured, and whose presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted, we find it difficult to see any reason why they should not be believed. The accused persons and the witnesses are residents of the same village. Their relations were strained. It was a moonlight night. The assault went on for quite some length of time and in fact the assailants persisted in the assault of shifting at three places. The murderous assault on the 3 victims took place in the earlier part of the incident. We find no reason to take a different view of the findings arrived at by the learned sessions judge and by the division bench of the High Court as to the guilt of the accused appellants before us.
6. We find no fault with the view of the facts and of the law taken by the High Court. The appeals are held to be devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. They are dismissed accordingly and conviction of the accused-appellants along with sentences passed on them by the High Court are maintained.