The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and the absence of independent corroboration in witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT

Date : 22-01-2026

Pursuant to order of this Court, a report has been received from Sr. S.P., Bhagalpur which reveals that the appellant No. 3, Rajkumar Chaudhary, has died during the pendency of this appeal. In light of the said report, the appeal against appellant No.3 stands abated.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State.

3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2009 and order of sentence dated 03.09.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 239 of 2002, whereby and whereunder appellants Raj Kumar Chaudhary (since deceased), Shatrughan Chaudhary, Pandaw Chaudhary, Dilip Jha and Bharat Chaudhary have been convicted under Section- 323/149 of I.P.C., appellants Shatrughan Chaudhary, Pandaw Chaudhary and Dilip Jha have been convicted under Section- 147 of I.P.C., appellants Karan Chaudhary, Bharat Chaudhary and Raj Kumar Chaudhary have been convicted under Section 148 of I.P.C., appellant Raj Kumar Chaudhary has been convicted under Section 379 of I.P.C. and appellant Karan Chaudhary has been convicted under Section-307/149 of I.P.C. Appellants Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Shatrughan Chaudhary, Pandaw Chaudhary, Dilip Jha and Bharat Chaudhary have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months each under Section- 323/149 of I.P.C., appellants Shatrughan Chaudhary, Pandaw Chaudhary and Dilip Jha have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months each under Section-147 of I.P.C., appellants Karan Chaudhary, Raj Kumar Chaudhary and Bharat Chaudhary have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months each under Section-148 of I.P.C., appellant Raj Kumar Chaudhary has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 379 of I.P.C. Appellant Karan Chaudhary has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs.3000/- under Section-307/149 of I.P.C. and, in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo R.I. for three months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

4. In the Fardbayan recorded at the house of informant/PW 5, by S.I. Madhusudan Sharma of Sultanganj Police Station, it is asserted by the informant that on 9^th June, 1996, at about 8:30 hours, informant/PW 5 was at his gate with the injured brother Arvind Kumar Saini/PW 8. In the meantime, Bharat Chaudhary/appellant No.4 is stated to have come from eastern side. It is asserted by informant/PW 5 that the injured brother of informant, namely Arvind Kumar Saini/PW 8, proceeded towards the road for demanding money from appellant Bharat Choudhary/appellant No. 4. It is asserted by the informant that the there was a bet of Rs. 50/- each between appellant Dilip Jha and injured Arvind Kumar Saini/PW 8 as to who would be the Prime Minister. It had also been stated by the informant that the brother of informant, Arvind Kumar Saini/PW 8 and Bharat Chaudhary (appellant No. 4) are said to have gone near the house of Bisheshwar Yadav (not examined), for receiving the money from appellant Bharat Chaudhary (appellant No. 4). According to PW-5/informant, Bharat Chaudhary (appellant No. 4) called his brothers upon which appellants Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Satrughan Chaudhary alias Karuwa Chaudhary, Karan Chaudhary and Pandaw Chaudhary are said to have reached at that very place and started assaulting Arvind Kumar Saini/PW-8, with kicks and slaps