Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 825 (PAT)

Rana Satya Narayan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2004-08-17

INDU PRABHA SINGH, P.N.YADAV

body2004
Judgment P.N.Yadav, J. 1. No one knew the 12th March, 1990 when the people were celebrating and rejoining Holi festival would turn into the most unfortunate and gloomy day for the family of the informant Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh (PW 8) of village Markama situated under the jurisdiction of Sikandra Police Station of Munger district. It so happened that when at about 9.00 pm. In the night a number of villagers including the deceased Pawan Kumar Singh aged about 16 years, the only son of Kusheshwar Singh singing songs of Hole arrived near the house of appellant Rana Satya Narain Singh who along with his four sons including appellant Rana Niranjan Singh got infuriated and annoyed and they with gun, pistols and pharsa in their hands arrived at the scene of incident and started hurling abuses. The informant protested against their high handed and illegal act of hurling abuses whereupon Rana Satya Narain Singh and his four sons including appellant Rana Niranjan Singh got infuriated and enraged and some of them resorted to firing, of course, in the air. The ill fated chap Pawan Kumar Singh out of fear wanted to flee away in a bid to save his life. In the meanwhile appellant Rana Satya Narain Singh ordered and instigated his sons who were all accused in the case to do away with all who had reached there singing Holi saying no one should be allowed to make good escape. In pursuance of his order the appellant Rana Niranjan Singh inflicted a farsa below on the head of the tender aged boy Pawan Kumar Singh as a result of which he sustained serious, grievous and dangerous injury and fell down unconscious and soon he was removed to the State dispensary, Sikandra where he was declared dead. Anil Kumar Singh (PW 1), Sunil Kumar Singh (PW 2), Upendra Singh (PW 4), Arun Kumar Singh (PW 6), Ram Lakhan Singh and others are said to have witnessed the incident leading to the death of the deceased. 2. Old animosity emanating from long drawn laid dispute between the parties is said to have impelled the accused persons including the appellants to take extreme steps of eliminating the deceased. 3. 2. Old animosity emanating from long drawn laid dispute between the parties is said to have impelled the accused persons including the appellants to take extreme steps of eliminating the deceased. 3. With these accusations the informant (PW 8) submitted a written report to the Officer-in-Charge of Sikandara Police Station on the basis of which formal first information report was drawn-up and Sikandara PS Case No. 38/90 was registered against Rana Satya Narain Singh and his four sons, namely, Rana Niranjan Singh, Rana Dilip Singh, Rana Pradeep Singh and Rana Ranjeet Singh. As usual investigation commenced, the Police Officer inspected the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, caused the dead body to be sent to Mortuary for autopsy, recorded statements of the witnesses, took steps for apprehension of the accused, collected post mortem examination report and on conclusion of investigation filed charge- sheet against all the five accused persons including appellant Rana Satya Narain Singh and Rana Niranjan Singh thereinafter the "accused" to be used in place of appellant. 4. All the five accused persons were put-up for trial. Accused Rana Niranjan Singh was charged under Sections 302 and 148 while accused Rana Satya Narain Singh, Rana Dilip Singh, Rana Pradeep Singh and Rana Ranjit Singh were charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 5. In order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused persons, the prosecution examined PW 3 Abdul Mokir, PW 7 Md. Salim besides PWs 1 2, 4, 6 and 8 who were all eye-witnesses. PW 5 Dr. Chandramaditya Singh conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. PW 9 Prasidh Narain Singh, PW 10 Gopal Tanti merely proved the FIR and certain paragraphs of the case diary as despite the best possible efforts made by the Court, the Investigating Officers attendance could not be procured and as such he remained unexamined. 6. The accused persons did not enter into defence and they did not choose to examine witnesses in their defence. 6. The accused persons did not enter into defence and they did not choose to examine witnesses in their defence. However, from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and the statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defence seemed to be that of total denial and false implication due to previous enmity. 7. The Court in seisin of the case after scanning and appreciating evidence available on record negatived the plea of innocence and recorded findings of guilt and convicted and sentenced Rana Niranjan Singh to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Code and convicted and sentenced Rana Satya Narain Singh to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/109 of the Code acquitting accused Rana Dilip Singh, Rana Pradeep Singh and Rana Ranjeet Singh of the charges under Section 302/149 and Section 147 of the Code and further acquitting the accused of the charges under Section 148 of the Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act vide the impugned judgment and order. 8. The accused challenged their conviction and sentence and assailling the propriety of the findings recorded against them, the accused Rana Satya Narain Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2000 while the accused Rana Niranjan Singh filed Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 2000. Both the appeals were heard together and they are going to be disposed of by this common judgment. 9. The facts having been recapitulated in the preceding paragraphs, the evidence adduced during trial may now be noticed for correct appraisal thereof. All the material witnesses viz. PW 1 Anil Kumar Singh, PW 2 Sunil Kumar Singh, PW 3 Abdul Mokir, PW 7, Md. Salim and PW 8 Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh, the informant were claimed by the prosecution to be the eye-witnesses to the incident leading to the murder of the deceased. Their evidence has been lucidly and in detail spelt out by the trial Court in its judgment and hence the same need not be discussed at length. However, it would be convenient and relevant to refer to the statements of the witnesses with brevity. We may first notice the evidence of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh (PW 8). Their evidence has been lucidly and in detail spelt out by the trial Court in its judgment and hence the same need not be discussed at length. However, it would be convenient and relevant to refer to the statements of the witnesses with brevity. We may first notice the evidence of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh (PW 8). He has stated that a number of villagers comprising Pawan Kumar Singh (deceased), Anil Kumar Singh (PW 1), Sunil Kumar Singh (PW 2), Abdul Mokir (PW 3), Upendra Singh (PW 4), Arun Kumar Singh (PW 6), Md. Salim (PW 7), Ram Lakhan Singh and others including himself were at about 9.00 pm on 12.3.1990 singing Holi moving in different parts of the village and in the process they arrived near the house of accused Rana Satya Narain Singh and just then Rana Satya Narain Singh and his four sons including Rana Niranjan Singh having gun, pistols and pharsa in their hands started hurling abuses and on protest being made by the informant accused Rana Satya Narain Singh ordered and instigated his sons to kill them all by opening fire upon them and they resorted to firing and the deceased being scared and frightened tried to flee away to his house but before he could make good escape accused Rana Niranjan Singh inflicted a pharsa blow on his head as a result of which he sustained injury and fell down unconscious where after Rana Satya Narain Singh hurling abuses uttered that the deceased was no more in the world and then they left the place of occurrence. The deceased was taken to State dispensary, Sikandra where he was declared dead. Identical is the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 7 who corroborated PW 8 in all material particulars. PW 4 Upendra Singh and PW 6 Arun Singh did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. Statements of PWs 2 and 6 were recorded under Section 164, Cr PC during investigation and they gave eye-witness account of the incident there. The evidence of the eye-witnesses referred to above is quite consistent and corroborative free from inherent taint and infirmity. They were all natural, competent, trustworthily and reliable witnesses. Nothing was elicited in their cross examination to impeach their veracity. 10. The evidence of the eye-witnesses referred to above is quite consistent and corroborative free from inherent taint and infirmity. They were all natural, competent, trustworthily and reliable witnesses. Nothing was elicited in their cross examination to impeach their veracity. 10. Though the evidence of the eye- witnesses is above board and wholly reliable it would be pertinent to refer to certain criticisms levelled against the same. In the first information report it is averred that when the deceased got ready to flee away, he was inflicted pharsa blow. At trial certain witnesses deposed and testified to the averment made in the first information report that Rana Niranjan Singh inflicted pharsa blow on the head of the deceased when he got ready to flee away to his house. As against this some other witnesses said that pharsa blow was inflicted on the head of the deceased while he was fleeing away or when he started fleeing away. This discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses is not at all material nor can it instill doubt in the prosecution case. 11. It has further been submitted that there is inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses in regard to location of the place of occurrence as well. According to some witnesses it is situated near the house of Rana Satya Narain Singh while according to other witnesses it is situated in the lane and still according to certain other witnesses the place of occurrence was field of one Surendra Singh. Though the Investigating Officer was not examined, from the description of the place of occurrence made in the case diary it would transpire that the place of occurrence situated a little away (one step) from the ridge of the field of Surendra Singh where from blood stained earth was seized by the Investigating Officer, On perusal of the entire evidence it would be crystal clear that the house of Rana Satya Narain Singh, the lane and the aforesaid field of Surendra Singh lay quite contiguous to each other and in view of some inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, their evidence cannot be rejected nor can it be said that the place of occurrence could not be established. Certain inconsistencies or discrepancies are bound to occur in the evidence of natural and truthful witnesses for, a witness while passing his way through the labyrinth of long cross-examination ventures to give some answer which is not necessarily true for fear that their evidence in respect of the main incident which he witnessed may not be discarded. Whatever inconsistencies or discrepancies cropped-up in the evidence of the witnesses are of no consequence and the same must be ignored. 12. The evidence of PWs 3 and 7 was subjected to the criticism that they belonged to Mohammedan community and their presence in the group of the villagers chanting sons of Holi was not expected. Both the witnesses are resident of village Markama where the incident took place and to which the deceased, the accused and all the witnesses including PWs 3 and 7 belong. It is in the evidence of PWs 3 and 7 that they and other members of the Mohammedan community of the village participate and enjoy almost all the Hindu festivals celebrated by the villagers and they were very much present among the people singing Holi at the time and place of incident and they witnessed infliction of fatal assault on the deceased. There is nothing unnatural and improbable in their evidence. Non-mention of the names of PWs 3 and 7 in the first information report cannot be a ground for discarding their evidence. The first information report is not the encyclopaodia containing every minute detail. It is not at all necessary and incumbent on the part of the informant to mention the names of all the witnesses in the first information report. The criticism levelled against the evidence must be overruled. 13. The medical evidence lent assurance to the eye-witness account of the occurrence leading to the murder of the deceased. PW 5, Dr. Chandramaditya Singh held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased aged about 16 years at about 9.30 am on 13.3.1990. He found ante mortem incised wound of dimension of 8-1/2" x 3/4" x bone deep from upper and lateral part of left eye brow to right parietal region of scalp cutting skull bone 8" x 1/2" x whole of thickness. On dissection and opening of the skull bone the brain matter was found cut in an area 7-1/2" x 1/8" x 1/2" from the left frontal to right parietal lobe of brain. On dissection and opening of the skull bone the brain matter was found cut in an area 7-1/2" x 1/8" x 1/2" from the left frontal to right parietal lobe of brain. In the opinion of the doctor the aforesaid injuries were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon such as pharsa and the death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries referred to above and the time elapsed since death was within 12 hours. 14. The occurrence took place at 9.30 pm on 12.3.1990 and the post mortem examination was held at 9.30 am on the next day, that is, just within 12 hours. The medical evidence is consistent with eye-witness account of the manner in which the deceased was inflicted heavy pharsa blow on his head. The time elapsed since death as opined by the doctor also lent support to the prosecution version regarding the time of occurrence. 15. Learned counsel for the accused has submitted that pharsa is a curved weapon and it would always cause curved injury but the post mortem examination report does not show that the injury was curved. There is no merit and substance in the submission and the same must be rejected. The doctor was not asked as to whether the injury found on the person of the victim was curved or not. Besides the shape and dimension of the injuries is dependent upon the shape of the weapon and the manner in which it was used as a weapon of assault. 16. The incident leading to the death of the deceased took place at 9.30 pm on 12.3.1990. The victim was sent to Sikandra State dispensary situated at a distance of 10 kms. from the place of occurrence. After the deceased was declared dead, the informant (PW 8) submitted a written report to the Officer-in-Charge of Sikandra Police Station on the basis of which the formal first information report was drawn-up in the early morning at about 4.00 am on 13.3.1990. There is no delay at all in lodging the first information report. There was no chance of concoction and embellishment to be made by the informant. Prompt lodging of the first information report adds genuineness and truthfulness to the prosecution version. 17. PW 4 Upendra Kumar Singh and PW 6 Arun Kumar Singh turned volte face to the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. There was no chance of concoction and embellishment to be made by the informant. Prompt lodging of the first information report adds genuineness and truthfulness to the prosecution version. 17. PW 4 Upendra Kumar Singh and PW 6 Arun Kumar Singh turned volte face to the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. Their attention was drawn to their previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr PC. The witnesses could not be contradicted as the Investigating Officer was not examined despite strenuous efforts made by the Court and as such certain relevant paragraphs of the case diary were got exhibited by the prosecution. Both PWs 4 and 6 supported the case in its entirety during investigation. PW 6 as well as PW 2 gave eye-witness account of the incident in their statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both PWs 4 and 6 appeal" to have turned hostile to the truth. On account of hostility of PWs 4 and 6, the prosecution case well proved by cogent and un-impeachable evidence of Other witnesses could not be viewed with suspicion. 18. Non-examination of Ram Lakhan Singh named in the first information report is of no consequence. It is not incumbent on the part of the prosecution to examine each and every witness who is conversant with the facts of the case. Besides, it is a matter of common experience that when murders are committed in the villages due to faction or feud or animosity existing among the villagers independent villagers non-aligned to any of the groups or parties seldom get ready to depose for fear that giving evidence may invite the wrath of the assailants and he may be exposed to serious risk. 19. The parents of the accused too were not examined by the prosecution. They were not eye-witnesses to the incident and their evidence was not essential for unfolding of the narratives of the prosecution case and as such their non-examination cannot render the prosecution version doubtful. 20. As already stated despite the best possible efforts made by the Court, the at- tendance of the I.O. could not be procured for recording his evidence. In the facts and circumstances attending to the case, non- examination of the I.O. could not destroy or adversely affect the fabric or edifice of the prosecution case. 20. As already stated despite the best possible efforts made by the Court, the at- tendance of the I.O. could not be procured for recording his evidence. In the facts and circumstances attending to the case, non- examination of the I.O. could not destroy or adversely affect the fabric or edifice of the prosecution case. No prejudice was shown to have been caused to the accused in their defence on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer. The entire prosecution case cannot be thrown over board in view of non-examination of the I.O. 21. We may now advert to the contention put forward by Sri Ashwini Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the accused that there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased for, a single pharsa blow was inflicted on his head without the blow having been repeated nor did the accused persons including Rana Satya Narain Singh who were armed with gun and pistol resorted to firing against the deceased and as such conviction under Section 302 of the Code cannot be sustained and the accused can at best be said to be liable under Section 304 Part II of the Code. 22. Sri Ashwini Kumar Sinha, learned State counsel has resisted the contention raised on behalf of the accused by submitting that even in absence of intention or mens rea to kill the deceased if bodily injury is inflicted by a single blow and bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death the act of inflicting fatal injury causing death would amount to murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 23. The incident took place at 9.30 pm on 12.3.1990. He was inflicted heavy pharsa blow on his head. He suffered serious Injury of wide dimension on the parietal region of his head badly cutting and damaging the brain. The vital organ of the body was cut and smashed. The deceased died within two and a half hours of infliction of injury on the vital part of his body. The injury must be said to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death though no suggestion to this effect appears to have been put to the doctor (PW 5). The deceased died within two and a half hours of infliction of injury on the vital part of his body. The injury must be said to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death though no suggestion to this effect appears to have been put to the doctor (PW 5). The materials on record would reveal that the assailant intentionally inflicted injury on vital part of the body of the victim and the said injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The pharsa blow was not dealt on non-vital part of the body such as leg or hand or finger nor was the injury unintentional or accidental. Death was the direct result of the injuries inflicted by the accused on vital organ of the body of the deceased. In the facts and circumstances, the offence committed by the accused must obviously be murder under clause thirdly of Section 300 of the Code. It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. No one has licence to inflict injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and to claim that he is not guilty of murder. No evidence or explanation has been given why the accused dealt heavy pharsa blow on the head of the deceased. Accused Rana Niranjan Singh who dealt the fatal blow cannot be allowed to take the plea that he did not repeat infliction of blow and the deceased suffered a single blow and as such he cannot be liable for committing the offence of murder. On this point the land mark judgment was rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Virsa Singh V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 . In the cases of Jai Prakash V/s. State (Delhi Administration), 1991 BBCJ 139 (SC) (Constitution Bench) and Dhopa Chamar and others V/s. State of Bihar, 2002 (3) East Cr C 155 (SC) : 2002 (2) JCJR 320 (SC) : 2002 SCC (Cr) 1389 single blow was inflicted on the person of the victims causing their death and even then it was held that clause thirdly of Section 300 of the Code would be attracted and the assailant would be guilty of murder. In the case of State of Karnataka V/s. Md. In the case of State of Karnataka V/s. Md. Nazeer @ Babu, (2003) 2 SCC 444 alteration of conviction and sentence under Section 302 to Section 304, Part II of the Code made by the High Court under similar facts and circumstances was set aside and the judgment and order of trial Court was restored. 24. In the case at hand the deceased along with others was singing Holi. He was empty handed. He committed no overt act againsf the accused. While quarrel and exchange of hot words was going on he was standing there as a silent spectator. He got ready to flee away after the accused Rana Satya Narain Singh hurling abuses ordered that every one be killed and firing was also resorted to by him and his sons and just then accused Rana Niranjan Singh dealt pharsa blow on the head of the deceased. The accused Rana Satya Narain Singh then asked his sons to retreat saying the deceased was no longer alive. There was no provocation to the accused from the side of the victim. The assaillant cannot be said to have acted in a fit of anger on the spur of moment. 25. In view of the principle of law laid down in Virsas case (supra) followed by a catana of decisions rendered by the Apex Court, cases of Rajnitisinh Chandrasinh Atodaria V/s. State of Gujrat, AIR 1994 SC 1060 and Sarup Singh V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2452 relied upon by the accused are not applicable here for, their facts and circumstances are entirely different from those of the instant case and on the basis of the decisions rendered therein it cannot be held that the accused would be liable under Section 304, Part II and not under Section 302 of the Code. 26. We may now notice and consider another important point lucidly raised on behalf of accused Rana Satya Narain Singh. Sri Singh, learned counsel appearing on his behalf was critical of conviction and sentence under Section 302/109 of the Code slapped on him without the charge thereunder having been framed against him. He has contended that Rana Satya Narain Singh along with his three sons was charged under Section 302/149 of the Code and the Court below found and held that the charge thereunder could not be proved and it accordingly acquitted them of. He has contended that Rana Satya Narain Singh along with his three sons was charged under Section 302/149 of the Code and the Court below found and held that the charge thereunder could not be proved and it accordingly acquitted them of. the charge under Section 302/149 of the Code but the Court below committed error of law in convicting Rana Satya Narain Singh under Section 302/149 of the Code for, abetment is a distinct offence for which a charge must be framed. Reliance was placed on the cases Joseph Kurian and another V/s. State of Kerala, 1995 (1) East Cr C 487 (SC) : (1994) 6 SCC 535 , Vakil Yadav and another V/s. State of Bihar, (2000) 10 SCC 500 , Sohan Lal alias Sohan Singh and others V/s. State of Punjab, 2004 SCC (Cr) 226 and Chavda Jivanji and others V/s. State of Gujrat, 2004 SCC (Cr) 437. 27. On the other hand Shri Sinha, learned counsel for the State relying on the Constitution Bench decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Willie (William) Slaney V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1956 SC 99 and Lallan Rai and others V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 2003 (3) East Cr C 15 (SC) : 2003 (1) JCR 129 (SC) : 2003 (1) JCJR 67 (SC) : 2003 SCC (Cr) 301 has urged with persuasiveness that an accused can well be convicted for committing an offence without the charge having been framed against him for committing that particular offence provided no prejudice was caused to him in his defence. 28. It is true that in the case we are in seisin of, accused Rana Satya Narain Singh was charged under Section 302/149 of the Code and he was acquitted thereunder but he was convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302/109 of the Code even though no charge was framed thereunder against him. No error or illegality was committed by the trial Court in convicting Rana Satya Narain Singh for committing an offence of abetment to commit murder. No error or illegality was committed by the trial Court in convicting Rana Satya Narain Singh for committing an offence of abetment to commit murder. There is overwhelming evidence coming from the mouths of the eye-witnesses to the effect that Rana Satya Narain Singh was an abetter in as much as he ordered and instigated his sons including Rana Niranjan Singh to eliminate all and in pursuance of his order and instigation the deceased was inflicted heavy fatal blow on the vital part of his body. The charge regarding commission of murder of the deceased boy Pawan Kumar Singh was already there, though, of course with aid and assistance of Section 149 of the Code. The accused was well conversant and familiar with the fact that he was being tried for commission of murder of the deceased. The prosecution witnesses were subjected to long cross examination. The accused very well knew that the evidence was led charging him with commission of murder. He was afforded full and fair opportunity of defending himself his trial and conviction cannot be vitiated unless substantial prejudice is shown to have been caused to him. There is nothing on the record to show that the accused was misled and he was seriously prejudiced in his defence. There was no failure of justice on account of conviction of accused Rana Satya Narain Singh under Section 302/109 of the Code in absence of charge having been framed against him thereunder. This view finds support from the cases of Willie (Williams) Slaney (supra) and Lallan Rai and others (supra). On the basis of the principle of law enunciated in the cases referred to above a Division Bench of this Court altered conviction of the accused under Section 302/34 to Section 302 of the Code simpliciter in the case of death reference No. 214 of 2002 and Shri Bagwan Yadav and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, 2003 (4) PLJR 674 . 29. It is true in the present case Rana Satya Narain Singh was under Section 313, Cr PC not asked specific question regarding his instigating and ordering his sons to eliminate the deceased and he was asked general question in regard to his being a member of the unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object of which his son Rana Niranjan Singh caused the death of the deceased. On this score alone it cannot be said that the accused was put to prejudice and he could not defend himself properly and effectively. 30. In view of the above discussions the cases of Joseph Kurian and another (supra), Vakil Yadav and another (supra), Sohan Lal @ Sohan Singh and others (supra) and Chavda Jivanji and others (supra) would not apply to the case at hand as the decisions therein were rendered in the perspective and facts and circumstances different from those of the case we are in seisin of, the said cases would not come to the rescue of the accused before us. 31. The contention that a police out post is situated hardly one km. away from the place of occurrence but the informant instead of informing the police there rushed to Sikandra 10 kms. away and he lodged the first information report there at 4.00 am in the morning and this delay in setting the law in motion provided ample opportunity to him for making concoction and embellishment and all this instills serious doubt in the prosecution case is devoid of merit and force and the same must be rejected outright. The deceased sustaining serious injury fell down unconscious. It was the first and foremost duty of the informant and the members of his family to take the victim to the nearest hospital situated at Sikandara to save his life and the informant PW 8 along with others rightly proceeded to Sikandara with the victim who was unfortunately declared dead on his arrival at the hospital. It was also possible that the deceased breathed his last on way to the hospital. Alter the deceased died at about mid night the first information report was lodged in the early morning at 4.00 am. The informant and other members of his family must be in deep mental agony and perplexed and there was no chance of making concoction and embellishment in the FIR lodged so promptly. The police out post could not have entertained FIR and registered a case. It could be done only at a full fledged police station. The informant or any one else was not expected or under obligation to lodge information with the police out post referred to above. 32. The police out post could not have entertained FIR and registered a case. It could be done only at a full fledged police station. The informant or any one else was not expected or under obligation to lodge information with the police out post referred to above. 32. It has been pleaded that about 8 years prior to the incident one Rajendra Dharhi, a notorious dacoit was killed by the villagers of the deceased and the members of the gang of Rajendra Dharhi by way of retaliation and taking revenge several times attacked the village and the deceased was, in fact, killed in such an attack made by the dacoits and the accused persons have been falsely implicated out of sheer enmity emanating from long drawn land dispute between the parties. The plea of defence cannot be accepted. No evidence, oral or documentary was brought on record to show that Rajendra Dharhi was killed by the villagers of the deceased and the witnesses. There is nothing on the record to show when Rajendra Dharhi was killed, when his associates attacked the villagers by way of retaliation or taking revenge, when the deceased was killed in such an attack by the gang men of Rajendra Dhari, whether any case was registered in respect of commission of murder of Rajendra Dharhi and whether any case was lodged against the associates of Rajendra Dharhi for having committed murder of the deceased Pawan Kumar Singh. The witnesses were not even suggested when, where and in what manner the deceased was killed by the associates of Rajendra Dharhi. It is not at all probable that the deceased was killed by the dacoits and the gang men of Rajendra Dharhi and the accused persons have been falsely implicated on account of land dispute. There is no substance and merit in the defence version. The learned counsel could not persuade us to accept the plea of defence set-up by the accused. 33. In view of what has been stated and observed in the preceding paragraphs, both the appeals being merit less are dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused are maintained and confirmed. Accused Rana Niranjan Singh is in jail custody. He shall serve out the remainder of sentence, the accused Rana Satya Narain Singh is on bail. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused are maintained and confirmed. Accused Rana Niranjan Singh is in jail custody. He shall serve out the remainder of sentence, the accused Rana Satya Narain Singh is on bail. Let his bail bond be cancelled and he be directed to surrender himself in the Court below to serve out the sentence failing which coercive steps shall be taken against him by the trial Court for procuring his surrender/arrest. I.P.Singh, J. 34 I agree.