judgement of laxmanpur massacre case

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 … … … Informant)

Versus

1. Girija Singh, S/o Late Patiram Singh, aged about 63 years.

2. Surendra Singh, S/o Mahadeo Singh, aged about 63 years.

3. Ashok Singh, S/o Late Indradeo Singh, aged about 46 years.

4. Gopal Sharan Singh, s/o Late Awadhesh Singh, aged about 61 years.

5. Baleshwar Singh, S/o Parsuram Singh, aged about 80 years.

6. Dwarika Singh, S/o Late Ram Naresh Singh, aged about 58 years.

7. Bijendra Singh, S/o Late Dudhyanath Singh, aged about 55 years.

8. Nawal Singh, S/o Late Ram Bhajan Singh, aged about 62 years.

9. 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:- 1. Sri Radhe Shyam, Advocate,

2. Sri Balmiki Prasad Sinha, Advocate,

3. Sri Vidyanand Kumar, Advocate,

4. Sri Sanjay Dilip Kumar, Advocate,

5. Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate,

6. Sri Vishnu Dhar Pandey, Advocate,

7. Sri Umesh Kumar Singh, Advocate,

8. Sri Sunil Kumar-II, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

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. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Binod Kumar Paswan S/o Ram

Chela Paswan of village Lakshmanpur Bathe, P.S. Mehandia, District

Jehanabad, now Arwal, hereinafter called as “Informant” gave/lodged a fard-

beyan 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. Phanish Kumar Singh, S/o Birendra Singh

2. Ashok singh, S/o Indradeo Singh.

3. Anjani Singh, S/o Dwarika Singh.

4. Pramod Kumar Singh, S/o Gopal Singh.

5. Gopal Singh, S/o Awadhesh Singh.

6. Baliram Singh, S/o Awadhesh Singh.

7. Dharikshan Singh, S/o Phulan Singh.

8. Surendra Singh, S/o Baliram Singh.

9. Dwarika Singh, S/o Bodha Singh.

10. Nand Singh, S/o Late Kameshwar Singh.

11. Chandeshwar Singh, S/o Late Mameshwar Singh.

12. Kewal Singh, S/o Shital Singh.

13. Nawal Singh, S/o Bhagaru Singh.

14. Bhukhan Singh, S/o Ram Dhyan Singh.

15. Giraja Singh, S/o Late Patiram Singh.

16. Nandu Singh, S/o Baleshwar Singh.

17. Baleshwar Singh, S/o Pakhabaran Singh.

18. Bijendra Singh, S/o Siddhnath Singh.

19. Satrudhan Singh, S/o Ram Ekbal Singh

All of village Laxamnpur Bathe, P.S. Mehandia, District

Jehanabad.

20. Dharma Singh, S/o Shiv Sharma.

21. Ashok Sharma, S/o Naresh Sharma.

22. Shiv Mohan Sharma, S/o Mangal Sharma.

23. Surendra Singh, S/o Rampyaree Singh.

24. Sudarshan Sharma, S/o Triveni Sharma.

25. Babaloo Sharma, S/o Dwarika Sharma.

26. 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 post-

mortem 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. and Enquest

report is Ext.

Kabutari Devi, P.M. Report is Ext. and Enquest report is Ext.

Amar Paswan

Umar Paswan

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. Kalawati Devi, W/o Devesh Rajbanshi, Enquest report is Ext. 18/4

and P.M. Report is Ext. 1/39 issued By P.W.22 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Singh.

5. Malati Devi, W/o Kamalesh Rajbanshi, the Enquest report is Ext.

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-3ƒ 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 3³ 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. 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.

23).

In this house one Mahesh Rajbanshi was injured and he was examined

as P.W. 17.

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. 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

(P.W. 20).

iii. Om Nath Choudhary aged about 8 years whose Enquest report is

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

20).

iv. Nanhak Choudhary whose Enquest report is Ext. 18/2 and P.M.

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. 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.

21).

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. 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.

19).

The I.O. has also found 9 MM empty cartridges from the house which

was seized and seizure list was prepared.

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. 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

Ext.

iv. Naresh Choudhary, S/o Mahesh Choudhary whose P.M. was

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 Judge-

II, 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 Belwanti Devi

P.W.2 Sikandar Choudhary

P.W.3 Lakshman Rajbansh

P.W.4 Dudha Nath Choudhary

P.W.5 Surendra Rajbansh

P.W.6 Mutur Rajbansh

P.W.7 Subedar Ravidas

P.W.8 Ram Vinesh Rajbansh

P.W.9 Yugal Ravidas

P.W.10. Mahurati Devi

P.W.11 Bimalesh Kumar

P.W.12 Munni Rajbansh

P.W.13 Makund Mistri

P.W.14 Sohrai Mahto

P.W.15 Chaukidar Ramanand Yadav

P.W.16 Ram Ugrah Rajbansh

P.W.17 Mahesh Rajbansh

P.W.18 Manoj Kumar

P.W.19 Dr. Sri Nath Prasad

P.W.20 Dr. Ashok Kumar

P.W.21 Dr. Mithilesh Kumar

P.W.22 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Singh

P.W.23 Dr. Rakesh Kumar

P.W.24 Anil Kumar

P.W.25 Kamakhya Narain

P.W.26 Kamal Deo Ram

P.W.27 Ramanuj Pandit

P.W.28 Ram Vinai Kumar Singh

P.W.29 Baidyanath Prasad

P.W.30 Om Prakash Paswan

P.W.31 Panchanand Paswan

P.W.32 Sahendra Paswan

P.W.33 Ram Roop Ram

P.W.34 Dukhan Choudhary

P.W.35 Baleshwar Singh

P.W.36 Sri Ram Dhari Singh

P.W.37 Sri Bhagwan Singh

P.W.38 Bhutti Ram

P.W.39 Dashrath Ram

P.W.40 Jai Pati Paswan

P.W.41 Binod Paswan

P.W.42 Sidhanath Paswan

P.W.43 Ram Nath Ram

P.W.44 Omkar Tiwary

P.W.45 Ayodhya Singh

P.W.46 Ram Naresh Kahar

P.W.47 Vidyanand Prasad

P.W.48 Bira Sao

P.W.49 Nandjee Ram

P.W.50 Hridaya 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 Awadhesh Chamar

P.W.56 Awadhesh Dusadh

P.W.57 Banshidhar Sharma

P.W.58 Bhagra Sao

P.W.59 Deo Narain Ram

P.W.60 Ram Chandra Ram

P.W.61 Jawahar Ram

P.W.62 Mangal Ram

P.W.63 Jatuli Ram

P.W.64 Teja Kahar

P.W.65 Dashrath Sharma

P.W.66 Surendra Prasad

P.W.67 Kashi Sao

P.W.68 Dhora Ram

P.W.69 Sipahi Sao

P.W.70 Mishari Prasad Kahar

P.W.71 Rajan Ram

P.W.72 Harinarain Ram

P.W.73 Amir Chandra Ram

P.W.74 Ram Suresh Singh

P.W.75 Sipahi

P.W.76 Ram Prasad Ram

P.W.77 Shiv Shankar Ram

P.W.78 Gupteshwar Singh @ Kahar

P.W.79 Bijali Ram

P.W.80 Dipan Sharma

P.W.81 Puranamasi Ram

P.W.82 Raj Kumar Rai

P.W.83 Ram Balak Yadav

P.W.84 Nathu Prasad Tatani

P.W.85 Shri Dhar Mandal

P.W.86 Dr. Rajendra Prasad

P.W.87 Azahar Hussain

P.W.88 Akhilendra Kumar Singh

P.W.89 Dr. G. C. Jha

P.W.90 Dr. Jainendra Kumar

P.W.91 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. 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. 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. 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 Rajiv Nayan Kumar

D.W.2 Mritunjay Sharma

D.W.3 Imeshwar Singh

D.W.4 Bhola Sharma

D.W.5 Upendra Sharma

D.W.6 Dinanath Sharma

D.W.7 Mukesh Kumar

D.W.8 Devendra Pratap

D.W.9 Jagadish Choudhary

D.W.10 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. Deceased were belonging to the community of scheduled castes.

iv. The accused are one of particular caste i.e. Bhumihar Brahmin.

v. 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. Three boys and girls were killed in this massacre.

viii. 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 Hon’ble Court’s letter no. XVIII-1-99 dated 07.10.1999 the

case was transferred to the Court of Patna Jurisdiction.

xvii. The Hon’ble 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 Doctor’s 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 cross-

examination 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 20-

25 persons were standing and they pushed the door of his brother’s 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.


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.


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.


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.


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. 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

are:-

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.


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, Non-

challenge of identification itself is sufficient to believe the testimony of this

witness.


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 cross-

examining 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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 don’t 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 Hon’ble 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 Fard-

beyan 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-in-

charge, 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble Court’s 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-in-

charge 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court

vide 2005 SCC 9Cri.) 127 has fully distinguished the expression of 149 and

Hon’ble Supreme Court has given specific observation in this regard. In the

said judgment of para 12 and 13 the Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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. Awani Bhushan Kumar S/o Rameshwar Pandey

2. Ram Eqwal Sharma S/o Late Ram Uttim Sharma

3. Dharichan Choudhary, S/o Late Jeev Narain Choudhary

4. Butan Choudhary alias Harendra Choudhary, S/o Late Late

Dineshwar Choudhary

5. Chandra Shekhar Choudhary, S/o Late Shiv Pujan Choudhary.

6. Arbind Kumar, S/o Bed Narain Singh.

7. Ramesh Singh, S/o Kapildeo Singh.

8. Sri Niwas Pandey, S/o Nand Kishore Pandey.

9. Ajay Singh, S/o Late Ram Achhit Singh.

10. Dudul Singh, S/o Sri Bhagwan Singh

11. Bhagelu Singh,S/o Late Radha Singh.

12. Munshi Singh, S/o Yadunandan Singh

13. Ranjeet Singh, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh.

14. Saroj Rai, S/o Ram Dinesh Rai.

15. Bhola Rai, S/o Takluraj Rai.

16. Sidhyanath Rai,S/o Chandrama Rai.

17. Suresh Rai, S/o Ram Janam Rai.

18. Jata Singh, s/o Late Gupteshwar Singh.

19. 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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 cross-

examination 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 Hon’ble 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

behalf of the prosecution against above 19 accused persons:-

P.W. 33 Ram Roop Ram belongs to village Laxmanpur Bathe, has accepted the

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 cross-

examination 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 para–66. 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

Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 Court’s 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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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. Girja Singh, S/o Late Patiram Singh

2. Surendra Singh S/o Mahadeo Singh

3. Ashok Singh S/o late Indradeo Singh

4. Gopal Sharan Singh S/o late Awadhesh Singh

5. Baleshwar Singh S/o Parshuram Singh

6. Dwarika Singh S/o late Ram Naresh Singh

7. Bijendra Singh S/o late Dudhyanath Singh

8. Nawal Singh S/o late Ram Bhajan Singh

9. Balram Singh S/o late Awadhesh Singh

10. Nandu Singh S/o Baleshwar Singh

11. Shatrughan Singh S/o Ram Eqbal Sharma

12. Nand Singh S/o Kameshwar Singh

13. Pramod Kr. Singh S/o Gopal Sharan

14. Dharichan Singh S/o late Binod Pd. Singh

15. Chandeshwar Singh S/o Kameshwar Singh

16. Ram Kewal Singh @ Kawal S/o late Shita Sharma

17. Dharma Singh S/o late Shiv Singh

18. Shiv Mohan Sharma S/o late Mangal Singh

19. Ashok Sharma S/o late Ram Naresh Sharma

20. Babloo Sharma S/o Dwarika Sharma.

21. Mithilesh Sharma S/o Vijay Sharma

22. Navin Kumar S/o Lallan Pd.

23. Ravindra Singh S/o Rajeshwar Singh

24. Sunil Kumar S/o Kamal Nayan Sharma

25. Pramod Singh S/o Late Sankh Singh

26. 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 accused persons are on bail.

According they are taken into custody.

I acquit, the following accused.

1. Dharikshan Choudhary S/o late Jeev narain Choudhary

2. Butan Choudhary @ Harendra Choudhary S/o Dineshwar Choudhary

3. Chandra Shekhar Choudhary S/o late shiv Pujan Choudhary

4. Arvind Kumar S/o Bed Narain Singh

5. Ramesh Singh S/o late Kapildeo Singh

6. Sri Niwas pandey S/o Nand Kishore Pandey

7. Ajay Singh, S/o late Ram Achhat Singh

8. Dudul Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh

9. Bhagelu Singh S/o late Radha Singh

10. Munshi Singh S/o Yadhunandan Singh

11. Ranjeet Singh S/o late Bhuneshwar Singh

12. Saroj Rai @ Saroj Singh S/o Ram Dinesh Rai

13. Bhola Rai S/o Takuluraj Rai

14. Sidhyanath Rai S/o Chandrama Rai

15. Suresh Rai S/o Ram Janam Rai

16. Jata Singh S/o Late Gupteshwar Singh

17. Hridaya Singh S/o late Bengali Singh

18. Awani Bhushan Kumar S/o Rameshwar Pandey

19. 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.

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

Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble Apex Court while observing in Machhi

Singh case 1983 SCC (Criminal) 681 where it was held by the

Hon’ble 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-à-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-

à-vis whom the murders is in a dominating position or

a public figure generally loved and respected by the

community.”

5. The Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble High Court

and lastly by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 sister’s 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 don’t 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 Hon’ble 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. Girja Singh, S/o Lae Patiram Singh

2. Surendra Singh, S/o Mahadeo Singh

3. Ashok Singh, S/o Late Indradeo Singh

4. Gopal Sharan Singh, S/o Late Awadhesh Singh

5. Baleshwar Singh, S/o Parshuram Singh

6. Dharma Singh, S/o Late Shiv Singh

7. Dwarika Singh, S/o Late Ram Naresh Singh

8. Bijendra Singh, S/o Late Dudhyanath Singh

9. Nawal Singh, S/o Late Ram Bhajan Singh

10. Baliram Singh, S/o Late Awadhesh Singh

11. Shiv Mohan Sharma, S/o Late Mangal Singh

12. Nandu Singh, S/o Baleshwar Singh

13. Pramod Singh, S/o Gopal Sharan

14. Shatrughan Singh, S/o Ram Eqwal Sharma

15. Ram Kewal Sharma @ Kawal, S/o Late Shita Singh

16. 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 Hon’ble 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. Ashok Sharma S/o Late Ram Naresh Sharma

2. Babloo Sharma, S/o Dwarika Sharma

3. Mithilesh Sharma, S/o Vijay Sharma

4. Dharichan Singh, S/o Late Binod Prasad Singh

5. Chandeshwar Singh, S/o Kameshwar Singh

6. Navin Kumar, S/o Lallan Prasad

7. Ravindra Kumar, S/o Rajeshwar Singh

8. Surendra Singh, S/o Ram Pyare Singh

9. Sunil Kumar, S/o Kamal Nayan Sharma

10. 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

07.04.2010

1st Addl.Sessions Judge, Patna

07.04.2010

judgement of laxmanpur massacre case

Documents