Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: exhorted in Gauri Shankar Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 26 April, 2023Matching Fragments
14. He further deposed that in the solar light as also full moon light, the accuseds were identified. Further while his grandmother (P.W. 7) was sleeping inside the grill, the grandfather (deceased) was sleeping outside it.
15. P.W. 7 is the informant and wife of the deceased who has seen the entire occurrence. The lady reiterated that while she was sleeping inside the channel, her husband was sleeping in the 'dalan'. She further claimed to have seen all the accused persons and deposed that on dog bark, the couple woke up while her son Sunil Kumar (P.W. 1) and grandson (P.W. 6) also reached there. She saw Gauri Shankar Choudhary, Hari Choudhary and Manoj Choudhary were carrying pistols and upon enquiry by the deceased, Hari Choudhary exhorted to kill him as they have been identified. On this, Gauri Shankar Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1181 of 2016 dt.26-04-2023 Choudhary opened fire. She raised alarm, on which neighbours also came there. The injured husband was taken to Piro Hospital, then they went to the Piro Police Station which was locked and later to Ara Hospital where her husband succumbed to the injuries. She thereafter gave her 'fardbeyan' to the Piro Police who in the meanwhile had reached Ara Hospital. She claimed to have identified the accused persons in the solar light as also in full moon lit sky. She further stated to have shown the solar light to the Police.
(ii) so far as Hari Choudhary is concerned, it has again been consistent stand of the every eye witness that he exhorted Gauri Shankar Choudhary to kill as the deceased has identified them;
(iii) further, in case of Manoj Choudhary also, allegation that he too exhorted has come;
42. On the third submission put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants that earlier the order given role was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1181 of 2016 dt.26-04-2023 assigned to only Hari Choudhary, later during trial, it was deposed that Manoj Choudhary had also exhorted, in the considered view of this Court, there is force in the said contention. As per the original version, it was alleged that on having been exhorted by Hari Choudhary that they have been identified, Gauri Shankar Choudhary opened fire upon the husband of the informant which ultimately proved fatal. Further, no role was attributed to the appellant Manoj Choudhary save and except that he too was present alongwith Gauri Shankar Choudhary and Hari Choudhary.
58. Thus Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1181 of 2016 (Gauri Shankar Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar) and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1140 of 2016 (relating to appellant no. 1, Hari Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar) need no interference and are accordingly dismissed.
59. However, so far as the appellant no. 2, Manoj Choudhary in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1190 of 2016 is concerned, in the prosecution story, the main allegation was that appellant no. 1 Hari Choudhary exhorted, that they have been identified and upon such exhortation, appellant Gauri Shankar Choudhary opened fire while no role was assigned to appellant Manoj Choudhary but later during the trial, it was deposed that he too had exhorted.