Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1173 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Ranvir Yadav

2000-09-29

R.N.PRASAD, S.N.PATHAK

body2000
Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.2.1985 passed by Sri M.K. Verma, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, in Sessions Trial No. 853/82. Accused respondents were acquitted by the aforesaid judgment. One of the respondents, Kirat Yadav, died during the pendency of the appeal. The case against him abated by order dated 9.4.1991. Criminal Revision No. 440/85 was filed by the informant of the lower Court, namely, Lalitdeo Prasad, and the aforesaid appeal was filed by the State and, hence, both the revision and appeal are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. I find that accused-respondent Ranvir Yadav, Kirat Yadav (since dead), Khantar Sao and Mithu Yadav, were charged under Section 364, IPC, alongwith 302/34, IPC, as also under Section 25(a)/26, Arms Act. The aforesaid four accused-persons were further charged under Section 307/34, IPC for causing murderous injury upon Manikant Mishra. Accused Ranvir Yadav was separately charged under Section 302 for causing the death of Rameshwar Mistry and under Section 307, IPC for causing murderous injury upon Md. Omar Ali. Besides the aforesaid charges, accused Khantar Sao was charged under Section 302, IPC for causing death of Bahmdeo Singh. Accused Kirat Yadav (since dead) was charged under Section 302, IPC for causing the death of Rajendra Mistry. 3. The case of the prosecution, as per the fardbeyan of Lalitdeo Prasad Singh, the informant along with several other persons, namely, Rameshwar Mistry, Kailash Singh, Brahmdeo Singh, the Government Amin (Omar Ali), Biranchi Das, Challitar Singh, Jalim Singh, he wife of Rameshwar Mistry, Billo Mistry. Shiv Das, Kedar Das, Rajendra Mistry, Manikant Mishra and 5 to 6 others proceeded from Sirjua Ghat to the Diara across the Ganges river into the boat of Rameshwar Mistry. When this contingent of the informants party anchored into the Diara side of the river and some persons from the boat came out and proceeded to some distance, some criminals also alighted from small boat from the eastern and western side and asked these persons to stop. When these persons, who had alighted from the boat of the informant, did not stop, there was a firing from the side of the criminals which hit Manikant Mishra (PW 1). The criminals caught hold of Rajendra Mistry, Rameshwar Mistry, Brahmdeo Singh {all three deceased persons) and brought them near the boat of the informant. When these persons, who had alighted from the boat of the informant, did not stop, there was a firing from the side of the criminals which hit Manikant Mishra (PW 1). The criminals caught hold of Rajendra Mistry, Rameshwar Mistry, Brahmdeo Singh {all three deceased persons) and brought them near the boat of the informant. On the boat of the informant, still sitting were Kailash Singh, Biranchi Das, Challitra Singh, Shiv Das and the Government Amin. Near the boat, Rajendra Mistry was shot at by Kirat Yadav by rifle. Rameshwar Mistry was also fired at by Ranvir Yadav. Khantar Sao shot dead Bramhdeo Singh. Ranvir Yadav assaulted the Amin with rifle. Rajendra Mistry, Rameshwar Mistry and Brahmdeo Singh succumbed to their fire-arm injury at the spot. The dead bodies of these three deceased persons were load on the informants boat hereafter the boat of the informant was occupied by some of the criminals and other criminals boarded a small fisher mans boat and carried the informants boat inside the river towards east, beheaded the dead bodies at the order of Ranvir Yadav and also slit open the stomach of the dead bodies and thereafter threw the cut parts of the dead body into the river. On way inside the river, Kailash Singh was also shot dead by Ranvir Yadav as a lesson on he ground that Kailash had filed certain criminal case against the assailants. The informant and the other persons left inside the boat were also threatened of the dire consequences, if they disclosed the matter to the police. The informant and three others were brought to the bank of the river and made to disembark from the boat. The Amin was still carried further into the river. The informant came to the Sirjua Ghat. The cause of occurrence as given in the fardbeyan is that Ranvir Yadav had taken possession of several lands of Sirjua village and the villagers waned their lands to be measured and demarcated and so being angered at this step of the villagers, the accused- persons committed the aforesaid occurrence. 4. The defence of the accused- persons was that the police was inimical to the main accused Ranvir Yadav whose father, late Hariballabh Yadav, was killed by A.S.P. and in this connection a case was filed by servant of Ranvir Yadav. 4. The defence of the accused- persons was that the police was inimical to the main accused Ranvir Yadav whose father, late Hariballabh Yadav, was killed by A.S.P. and in this connection a case was filed by servant of Ranvir Yadav. Khantar Sao and Kirat Yadav were employees of Ranvir Yadav and, therefore, they were implicated falsely in the instant case. The police was pressing the accused-persons hard to withdraw the case of murder filed against the police officials. 5. During the course of trial prosecution had examined as many as 12 witnesses and brought on he record the fardbeyan of the informant (Ext 1), the injury report of Md. Omar Ali (Ext. 2), the formal FIR (Ext. 3), the seizure list (Ext. 4), the injury report penned by the police regarding Md. Omar Ali (Ext. 5) and the same regarding Manikant Mishra (Ext. 5/1) and the injury report prepared by the doctor with respect to Manikant Mishra (Ext. 6). Further documents such as Station Diary Entry No. 592,240, 334 and 649 were also exhibited (Exts. 7 to 7/3). The Chemical Examination Report (Exhibit 8), and carbon copy of the order-sheet of Case No. 5/81-82 (Ext. 9) and certified copy of the order-sheet of Case No. 5/81 and 82 (Ext. 10) were also exhibited. Some material exhibits such as empty cartridges and empty cases of Bullet, Charger and Hawai Slippers were exhibited as material exhibits (Ext. I to I/V, Ext. II to 11/1, Ext. III and TV). Out of the witnesses examined PW 1 was Manikant Mishra, PW 2 was Janardan Mistry, PW 3 was virendra Mistry. PW 4 was Nata Singh and PW 5 Chhote Lal Singh, PW 6 was Kamli Singh, who are the so-called eye-witnesses. PW 7 was the tendered witness. PW 8 is the informant himself who is also an eye-witness to the occurrence. PW 9 was doctor, Jagarnath Prasad Sinha who examined the injuries upon Md. Omar Ali, the Amin, PW 10 was Omar Ali, the Government Amin who had accompanied the informant into hiS boat. PW 11 was the I.O. of the case and PW 12 was a doctor who examined the injuries upon Manikant Mishra. 5. PW 9 was doctor, Jagarnath Prasad Sinha who examined the injuries upon Md. Omar Ali, the Amin, PW 10 was Omar Ali, the Government Amin who had accompanied the informant into hiS boat. PW 11 was the I.O. of the case and PW 12 was a doctor who examined the injuries upon Manikant Mishra. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the evidence of PWs and he acquitted them on the grounds, inter alia, that the genesis of the occurrence was not proved, the PWs were discrepant regarding the statements in Court and the same before the police about the alleged place of occurrence. Some of the PWs were also not named in the fardbeyan of the informant except three of them. The learned Sessions Judge also disbelieved the alleged occurrence on the ground that the blood-stained earth taken from the P.O. by the I.O. was not found to be containing blood as per report of the Chemical Analyst (Ext. 8). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, disbelieved the evidence of PWs and expressed his opinion that there was probability of the accused respondents being implicated in a false case at the instance of the police, because a case was filed by Ranvir Yadav against the police officer for causing death of his father. 6. The appellant (State of Bihar) challenged the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the trial Judge has committed certain errors of record and he also misinterpreted the evidence regarding genesis and, thus, he misconstrued the effect of the entire evidence particularly on the point of occurrence and that is why his findings suffered from perversity and, hence, the judgment of acquittal may be reversed. 7. First I shall examine the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding genesis of the occurrence In this connection the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned judgment has stated that some of the PWs had admitted in their cross- examination that the accused-respondents had not objected td the demarcation of the Sirjua Mauja or by their men and, therefore, were was no occasion for them to commit the alleged offence. In this connection, informants fardbeyan is to be looked into to ascertain as to what exactly is the cause of the occurrence given in this fardbeyan (Ext. 1). In Ext. In this connection, informants fardbeyan is to be looked into to ascertain as to what exactly is the cause of the occurrence given in this fardbeyan (Ext. 1). In Ext. 1 the informant has stated in the last but one paragraph that several lands of Sirjuna village were in forcible and cultivating possession of accused Ranvir Yadav and, therefore, the villagers of Sirjua were getting these lands measured by the Amin in order to release the same from the possession of the accused. Kailash Singh was killed because he had filed a case of murder against Ranvir Yadav and others. The aforesaid occurrence was, therefore, committed in order to take revenge from Kailash Singh and to terrify the villagers of Sirjua. Now the point is whether the demarcation of Sirjua village which was being done on account of a case (9 of 1981-82) was the cause of occurrence or whether this demarcation generated any kind of tension leading to the alleged occurrence. It is not in the fardbeyan of he informant that the accused-persons were opposing the demarcation of the Sirjua village and the villagers were pressing for the same and that is why the alleged occurrence was committed. In the fardbeyan a cause of the occurrence has been given in a summary manner. The same has been elaborated from the cross- examination of the PWs, PW 1 referred to the Demarcation Case No. 9/81-82 at paragraph 7 where he admitted that the case had been filed in this connection by the villagers of Sirjua. The learned lower Court referred to the application of one Ram Sharan Babu before the Collector for demarcation of the Thatha Mauja (Ext. E). This Ram Sahan Babu is admittedly uncle of accused respondent Ranvir Yadav. On the basis of Ext. E the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that since the relation of the accused was not opposing the demarcation, there was no occasion for the accused to commit the alleged offence. Looking over Ext. E, it transpires that the concerned M.L.A., Ram Sharan Babu, had stated in this application that there was urgent need to demarcation of the village Thatha, otherwise there was chance of blood-shed on account of tension prevailing in the village. In the first place, Thatha was a different village and Sirjua is the P.O. village. So Ext. E is not very much relevant and so the reference to this Ext. In the first place, Thatha was a different village and Sirjua is the P.O. village. So Ext. E is not very much relevant and so the reference to this Ext. by the learned Additional Ses- sions Judge is out of place and even otherwise, if this application is to be taken into consideration, it will sug- gest that on account of demarcation of village Thatha or Sirjua, there was certainly tension. This is so because in the fardbeyan of the informant itself there is the statement that accused Ranvir Yadav had taken possession of several lands of village Sirjua. Paragraph 5 of PW 2 suggests that village Thatha and Phulwaria were north of village Sirjua. This witness further stated that he was one of the applicants of Sirjua village for demarcation of Sirjua. At paragraph 5 itself this witness further says that village Taufir was west of village Sirjua. From the aforesaid statements of PW 2, it would transpire that Thatha Sirjua and village Taufir and Banni were all contiguous to each other and during course of demarcation, there was bound to be tension along the villagers of these bordering villages. From the evidence of other PWs, it transpires that the village Taufir and Banni were in the East of and West of village Sirjua. PW 1 at para 14 said that Sirjua Mauja is adjacent to Thatha. This witness was suggested with a question whether Ram Sharan Babu and 150 bighas land in village Thatha. PW 1 at paragraph 11 said that on the East of Sirjua there was village Banni and on the West there was Taufir. At paragraph 13 this witness was suggested with a question whether Ram Sharan Yadav and his family members had 125 bighas of load in village Sirjua. This witness denied knowledge about the ownership of Ram Saran Babu and his family members or landed property in village Sirjua or Thatha. But he above suggestions indicate that accused-persons were themselves admitting the fact that Ram Sharan Babu, the uncle of accused Ranvir Yadav, was having lands in village Sirjua and village Thatha. So, the application of Ram Sharan Babu regarding tension on account of demarcation or non-demarcation would lend circumstance to the alleged tension on account of demarcation which may give credibility to the alleged cause of offence. So, the application of Ram Sharan Babu regarding tension on account of demarcation or non-demarcation would lend circumstance to the alleged tension on account of demarcation which may give credibility to the alleged cause of offence. There may be tension on account of claims of villagers of villages contiguous and adjacent regarding particular lands falling in their villages or any other village. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has stated in this judgment that the accused-persons belong neither to village Taufir nor Banni nor Sirjua nor Thatha, rather to village Chukti. Hence, there was no question of their interest in the demarcation of village Sirjua or its adjacent villages. But the suggestions to the PWs which I have referred to above indicate that the family members of the accused Ranbir Yadav, who is the main accused in this case, and other accused- persons being his employees, were interested in the lands in village Sirjua and Thatha. This being the case, probability of the accused being enraged or annoyed with the demarcation work being carried out by a Government Amin cannot be ruled out. So, the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that genesis of the alleged occurrence was not at all proved, because PWs admitted that the accused were not opposing the demarcation, cannot be taken and accepted without a pinch of salt. The genesis of an occurrence need not be proved in is literal sense, it is rather the substantive case of genesis which is to be gathered from the evidence on record. The reference to the statement of the PWs, which I have set forth above, clearly indicates that the accused-persons might certainly be having some reservations about the manner in which the Government Amin was conducting measurement and that is why the Amin was carried away in he Ganges river after committing the alleged crime and, thus, he was not allowed to perform his duty of the measurement. This will further add a circumstance to the alleged cause of occurrence as given in the fardhey an of the informant in a succinct statement. 8. This will further add a circumstance to the alleged cause of occurrence as given in the fardhey an of the informant in a succinct statement. 8. As far as the contention of he learned Additional Sessions Judge that cartridges and slippers recovered by the I.O. (PW 11) from the P.O. could be planted by the police, I am of the opinion that there may be some probability of this kind, but there cannot be any necessary inference or assumption in this regard by the trial Court. There is a seizure list on the record in this connection (Ext. 4). So, even if the seized materials were not produced in Court, on basis of the seizure list (Ext. 4), coupled with the oral evidence of the I.O. (PW 11), there can be a safe presumption that these articles mentioned in the seizure lists were, of course, seized. In this connection, the learned lower Court also considered the report of the chemical analyst. (Ext. 8) who was examined as a Court witness and stated in the judgment that analyst did not find any blood in the blood-stained earth allegedly seized by the I.O. and sent to the chemical analyst. Of course, the chemical analyst in his report or in his evidence in Court stated that no blood was found on the sample sent to the laboratory by the police. However, this omission in itself will not suggest that no occurrence as alleged took place. The date of occurrence is 31.7.1982. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that during rainy season specially by the end of July, there is rise in the water level of the Ganges and in such a circumstances diara land would be only water-soaked. In such a circumstance the chance of the blood being wiped out or washed off by the gush and rush of water on account of rise and fall of the water level is very much there. It was come in the evidence of PWs that on the alleged date there was already the rise and fall of the water level. 9. Now the learned lower Court disbelieved the evidence on the point of the occurrence after taking into consideration various statements of PWs one by one. In this connection the finding of the learned trial Judge regarding the evidence of each and every PWs shall have to be considered. 9. Now the learned lower Court disbelieved the evidence on the point of the occurrence after taking into consideration various statements of PWs one by one. In this connection the finding of the learned trial Judge regarding the evidence of each and every PWs shall have to be considered. The learned trial Judge stated in the impugned judgment hat some PWs were not named in the fardbeyan. But in the memo of appeal it has been stated that PW 3 Birendra Mistry is very much named in the fardbeyan as Billo Mistry. he deposition of Birendra Mistry shows that he is son of Rameshwar Mistry, one of the deceased. Birendra may be likened to an address as Billo Mistry as his nick name. So the learned lower Court might have been misled into believing that this witness was not named in the fardbeyan. The evidence of this witness was also disbelieved on the ground that on his own admission, he was a student of Class 5 and his school sitting on Saturday was from 6 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. So the chance of this witness accompanying his father in a boat on Saturday was improbable in the opinion of the learned trial Judge. But when this witness claimed that he had accompanied his father, the Court cannot make presumption that he did not accompany his father. The chance of playing truant or becoming absent on a particular day cannot be ruled out. So, the disbelief to which this witness was subjected to by the trial Court was not based on sound and balanced reasoning, rather it was a probability on which alone his claim of witnessing the occurrence could not be discarded. Certain more errors of record committed by the trial Judge were referred to in the memo of appeal. At paragraph No. 12 of the memo of appeal it has been stated that the trial Judge referred to the evidence of PW 5 is Court regarding the number of party men of the prosecution side as 25 in Court whereas he had stated this number to be a (eight) in his statement made under Section 164, Cr PC. However, the statement of this witness in his examination under Section 164, Cr PC perhaps was not looked into by the trial Judge. However, the statement of this witness in his examination under Section 164, Cr PC perhaps was not looked into by the trial Judge. Perhaps he was misled by the suggestion given to this witness by the cross- examining lawyer at paragraph 10 in this regard. But on a look into the statement of this witness, Chhote Lal Singh, made under Section 164, Cr PC on 6.8.1982, it transpires that he named 25 persons in total who had accompanied this witness in the boat to Sirjua Diara. There is no statement that only 8 persons had boarded the boat. So, the contradiction referred to by the concerned cross-examining advocate was itself misdirected and wrong. The lower Court should have looked into the statement of this witness made under Section 164, Cr PC before making any finding in this connection in his judgment. So, of course, he committed error of record in this regard and the prosecution (appellant) has, therefore, rightly raised a finger against the trial Judge on this point. It has been stated at para 14 of the memo of appeal that the trial Judge while referring to the evidence of PW 6 stated that this witness made statement of dismembering of the dead bodies at the Sirjua ghat. But this witness did not make any statement in this regard that the cutting of the dead bodies was done at the ghat itself. This is with reference to this statement made under Section 164, Cr PC. The learned trial Judge stated that in Court this witness said that when he came to the said ghat he found the three deceased persons lying there, but in his examination under Section 164, Cr PC, he had said that when he came to the P.O. he found that the accused-persons were cutting the dead bodies and throwing them into the river. From the aforesaid two statements the learned trial Judge made a distinction between the two statements of this witness and perhaps felt that this witness contradicted the place of occurrence which according to the prosecution case happened at the two places one at the ghat (about killing), and the other inside the river where the dead bodies of the deceased were cut into pieces. But on a look into the statement of this witness under Section 164, Cr PC (Ext. But on a look into the statement of this witness under Section 164, Cr PC (Ext. 0/3), it is apparent that this witness made a categorical statement that when he came to the P.O. (Diara) on hearing the sound of firing, he saw that accused Ranvir Yadav, Kirat Yadav and Khantar Sao were throwing the dead bodies of Brahmdeo Singh, Rameshwar Mistry and Rajendra Mistry from the boat into the river water. This statement made in the Hindi language will never mean that the dead bodies were being cut into pieces at Diara ghat itself and not in he bed of the river. So, of course, the learned trial Judge committed an error of record here also. 10. At paragraph 15 of the memo of appeal, it has been pointed out that the learned trial Judge committed an error of record regarding a witness named in the fardbeyan Jalim Singh. The learned trial Judge in his judgment has stated that PW 8, the informant, said that Jalim Singh was not prepared to depose in favour of the prosecution and he had not come to the Court on that day (the day of his deposition), but Jalim Singh was very much present inside the Court room and being confronted with this fact, PW 8 admitted that Jalim Singh was present in Court. But in the memo of appeal, it is alleged at paragraph 15 that PW 8 did not state in his deposition that Jalim was not present in Court, rather he had stated that Jalim will not come to depose. On perusing the evidence of PW 8 at paragraph 16, it transpires that this witness made a positive statement that he had asked Jalim Singh to come to depose, but he did not come. Thereafter, he made another positive statement that Jalim Singh was present in Court. The previous statement that Jalim Singh did not come, referred to Jalims not coming to depose. It will never mean that Jalim had not come to the Court that day. So, perhaps the learned trial Judge either committed on error of record in this connection or he misinterpreted the above two separate and positive statements and, therefore, on account of his misreading or misinterpretation he branded this witness as a lier. It will never mean that Jalim had not come to the Court that day. So, perhaps the learned trial Judge either committed on error of record in this connection or he misinterpreted the above two separate and positive statements and, therefore, on account of his misreading or misinterpretation he branded this witness as a lier. Thus, the aforesaid reference to the errors of record committed by lower Court would suggest that the lower Court had perhaps committed such faux-pas and, therefore, he might have been swayed into erroneous findings regarding facts. On the basis of the above misstatements regarding the evidence on record the learned lower Court was further misled into recording an adverse finding regarding the alleged occurrence. Therefore, now I shall, hereinbelow refer to the other grounds on which the learned trial Judge disbelieved the alleged occurrence. 11. In broad terms, the learned trial Judge held that out of witnesses examined only three witnesses were named in the fardbeyan, PW 1, PW 10 (the Amin) and the PW 8 (the informant), one Jalim Singh named in the fardbeyan and the wife of Rameshwar Mistry were not examined. In this connection, I have already referred to the opinion of the learned trial Judge regarding the evidence of PW 3, Birendra Mistry. So far PW 3 and PW 4 are concerned, they are the kith and kin of the deceased, Rameshwar Mictry and Kailash Singh, and both are children. So, their chance of accompanying their fathers in the boat just for gun cannot be ruled out. Their non- naming in the fardbeyan they being children, cannot also be a significant adverse circumstances. So far PW 2 and PW 5 are concerned, they had come to the P.O. (diara ghat) on noise, and in the fardbeyan the names of only those have been mentioned who had accompanied the informant in his boat. So, the names of PWs 2, 5 and 6 not finding their entry in the fardbeyan is also insignificant. The learned trial Judge also disbelieved the occurrence on the ground that the P.O., according to the prosecution case, is the diara ghat, so far killing is concerned, but the occurrence of dismembering of the dead bodies inside the river. But some witnesses referred to both parts of the occurrence at the ghat itself. The learned trial Judge also disbelieved the occurrence on the ground that the P.O., according to the prosecution case, is the diara ghat, so far killing is concerned, but the occurrence of dismembering of the dead bodies inside the river. But some witnesses referred to both parts of the occurrence at the ghat itself. In this connection, I have already noted and referred to the evidence of PW 6, Kamli Singh, and disbelief or misbelief of this witness on account of his alleged statement made under Section 164, Cr PC, which the learned trial Judge erroneously referred to as contradictory, I need not dilate further on this point, Further, so far the alleged manner of occurrence is concerned, as described by the PWs, who were PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, PW 6 and PW 8, it is consistent to the effect that at the diara ghat, when the informants boat anchored at the ghat, some persons on the boat came out, then they were asked to stop by the criminals and there was simultaneous firing which hit PW 1 Manikant Mishra and the Amin PW 10. Subsequently Rameshwar Mistry, Brahmdeo Mistry and Rajendra were brought to the boat again by Ranvir, Khantar and Kirat Yadav and subsequently, these three persons were fired at from rifles and gun and they were killed. On this point of the alleged occurrence all the PWs are consistent and unambiguous. So far the second occurrence of cutting the dead bodies and throwing the pieces into the river is concerned, that occurred when the criminals loaded the dead bodies into the informants boat and carried the same to the otherside of the river and thereafter on the river water dead bodies were dismembered and thrown into the water. This part of the occurrence was witnesses by the informant, Lalitdeo Prasad, and some others who had been carried away in the informants boat and as per the evidence, some of the criminals followed the informants boat in the small boat in which they had arrived at the P.O. from the eastern and western side of the river. So, the occurrence of pieces of the dead bodies being thrown into the Ganges was witnesses by the informant and the Amin, out of whom PW 8 supports this version whereas the Amin does not support this version. So, the occurrence of pieces of the dead bodies being thrown into the Ganges was witnesses by the informant and the Amin, out of whom PW 8 supports this version whereas the Amin does not support this version. However, the Amin has been declared hostile by the prosecution as he had failed to name the accused as the assailants of the deceased as the Sirjua ghat. This Amin also failed to support the story of the prosecution about killing of Kailash Singh in the return boat of the informant on the rivers water. However the informant PW 8, supported this allegation of the prosecution in this connection. So far the evidence of Amin is concerned, he does speak of occurrence of killing of Rameshwar, Rajendra and Brahmdeo Singh at Sirjua ghat. So the occurrence of their killing at the alleged place of occurrence is corroborated by his also. Simply he has failed to name the assailants. The chance of the Amin being terrified by the accused- respondents circumstances on record. This is so, because being a Government Amin, he could not neglect his official duty on 31.7.1982. Moreover, he supports the major part of the alleged occurrence-killing-which occurred at the Sirjua ghat. But that is why he also supports the story of the prosecution that he (this witness, (PW 10) was himself carried away into the boat by the criminals. By clever omission, he has failed to name the accused- respondents as having participated in the alleged occurrence. Thus, by partially supporting the alleged occurrence, but denying the participation of the accused- respondents into the alleged occurrence, this witness persons though of washing his hands clean of his duty as human being. But his evidence while partially supporting the prosecution case would throw much credibility value of the prosecution case. 12. The prosecution case was disbelieved on some minor discrepancies to the effect that there were contradictions in the evidence of PWs, inter se, regarding the directions from which the criminals came in boats eastern of western direction of the river, or from the kash jungle. Such discrepancies regarding direction from which the criminals came, where certainly insignificant and not affecting the alleged occurrence of killing on its material particulars. 13. Such discrepancies regarding direction from which the criminals came, where certainly insignificant and not affecting the alleged occurrence of killing on its material particulars. 13. The learned trial Judge while referring to the evidence of some witnesses stated that they claimed to have seen the alleged occurrence from kash jungle in which perhaps the plants were 6 to 8 feet high. The learned trial Judge held that it was not possible for them to have seen the occurrence of killing from the jungle. In this connection, it is to be noted that jungles overgrown with kash plants cannot be so thick and to make it a wall to obstruct visibility of the P.O. from the cite of the hiding of these witnesses. Plants whatever may be their thickness, cannot totally obstruct visibility though they may constitute a cover for the witnesses for their hiding. It is a matter of common observation that plants, leave, spaces in between them to make room for sighting anything out of the plants or beyond the same. So the opinion of the learned trial Judge that these witnesses could not see the alleged occurrence of killing at the ghat is not based on sound reasoning. 14. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of PWs regarding the alleged occurrence and while discussing the evidence of DWs and some documents brought on the record on behalf of the accused-respondents held that there was probability of the police implicating the accused falsely. I think, the learned trial Judge had committed a legal error. Simply because Ranvir Yadav and his relations filed a case against the police for killing his father would not amount to the veracity of the accuseds allegation that the police had, of course, killed his father intentionally and deliberately and not in any encounter. On the record, there was no evidence that any of the police officers prosecuted by the accused was convicted. Of course, some revisions were pending here and there against some orders passed against the accused, but that also may not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the police implicated Ranvir Yadav and his men in a false case of killing of the three deceased of this case and the other one who was allegedly killed on their river water in a boat. The dead bodies were disposed of in the river water and the four deceased of this case were never and could not be, traced till the date of judgment passed by the lower Court. So it cannot be assumed that these four persons were killed by the police or killed by some other criminals and the police just on imagination implicated the accused- respondents. This circumstance on the record, therefore, was also in favour of the prosecution. The contradictions in the evidence of the PWs on the point of occurrence as discussed by the trial Judge have already been referred to by me and I have already discussed them in detail in order to see whether these contradictions are vital so as to disbelieve the evidence of the PWs regarding the alleged occurrence. It has been above that PWs on the point of the alleged killing of three persons on the bank of the otherside of the river (Diara side) were consistent. The contradictions in this connection were not so vital as to discredit the testimony on this point. The lower Court has referred to the evidence of the Amin and he opened that since the Amin failed to speak of the killing of Kailash Singh in the boat and since no paper regarding the filing of a case by Kailash against the accused was filed, the evidence of the sole witness, the informant, on the point of killing of Kailash could not be believed. Here also, I am of the opinion, that the learned trial Judge formed his opinion just on a facile assumption that the informant was under the clutches of the police in order to give he aforesaid statement. 15. So far the implication of one Mithu Yadav is concerned, the evidence in this regard of all the eyewitnesses was to the effect that Mithu Yadav was talking with the deceased persons at the other side of the Diara ghat and in the meantime Ranvir Yadav and others after having brought the three deceased near the informants boat where it was anchored, shot them dead. However, in this fardbeyan of the informant there is no reference at all to Mithu Yadav. So, it appears that the name of the Mithu Yadav figured in the evidence of PWs just by way of an improvement or subsequent development. So, the acquittal of Mithu Yadav cannot be reversed. 16. However, in this fardbeyan of the informant there is no reference at all to Mithu Yadav. So, it appears that the name of the Mithu Yadav figured in the evidence of PWs just by way of an improvement or subsequent development. So, the acquittal of Mithu Yadav cannot be reversed. 16. As a result of the above discussion on the entire gamut of evidence, I am of the opinion, that the learned trial Judge wrongly interpreted and wrongly analysed the evidence on record in order to come to his finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and, thereafter, further I am of the opinion that the learned trial Judge on account of his committing error of record came to a perverse finding about the veracity of the prosecution case. Hence, I think, the judgment of the lower Court deserves to be set aside. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and order of acquittal of the lower Court is set aside with respect to respondent Ranvir Yadav and Khantar Sao. 17. I find that the accused Ranvir was charged under Sections 302 and 307, IPC for causing the death of Rameshwar Mistry and for causing murderous assault on Md. Amin: So, he is held guilty under the aforesaid sections and convicted thereunder. Respondent Khantar Sao was charged under Section 307/34, IPC for causing murderous assault upon Manikant Mishra. He was also charged under Section 302, IPC for causing death of Brahmdeo Singh. He was also charged under Section 302/141, IPC for causing the death of Rajendra Mistry, Rameshwar Mistry, Brahmdeo Singh and Kailash Singh, besides Sections 364 and 201 IPC. So Khanar Sao is convicted under aforesaid sections. Ranvir Yadav along with others was also charged under Sections 201 and 364, IPC and 302/34, IPC. So, he is also convicted under the aforesaid sections. 18. However, the two respondents, Ranvir Yadav and Khantar Sah, are sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302, IPC. No separate sentence need be passed under other sections under which they have been convicted. The appeal with respect to Mithu Yadav is dismissed in view of the finding recorded above. The revision is. accordingly, disposed of. R.N.Prasad, J. 19 I agree.