Back
G.B.PATTANAIK, SHIVARAJ V.PATIL, R.P.SETHI
Rajendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
What is the legal standard for non-explanation of injuries on an accused and its effect on the prosecution's case? What is the applicability of Section 145 Evidence Act regarding contradiction of a witness by his prior statement and its sufficiency to prove Exhibit B? Whether the accused can be held liable under Section 302/34 IPC versus Section 302 IPC alone in a case with disputed common intention and reliance on eyewitness testimony?
Key Points: - Non-explanation of injury on an accused cannot ipso facto discard the prosecution case if evidence is clear, cogent, and creditworthy (!) - Non-explanation may affect probability of the prosecution where grievous injuries are involved and the witness testimony is hostile or the incident version is contested (!) - The requirements and procedures of Section 145 Evidence Act for contradicting a witness with a former statement (Exhibit B) were not satisfied in the noted case, impacting admissibility (!) - The court held that there was no common intention shared by Triloki with Rajender to murder, reducing liability from 302/34 to 324 IPC for Triloki; Rajender’s conviction was altered to 302 IPC (without 34) and sentence upheld (!) (!) - The judgment clarifies the distinction between common intention and similar intention under Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar and related precedents (!) - The jury of eyewitnesses PW-2, PW-4, PW-7, PW-8 formed the basis of the conviction; medical evidence supported homicidal death (!) (!) - The arguments on Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC were rejected as not satisfying the three ingredients for sudden fight and lack of pre-meditation (!)
JUDGMENT
Pattanaik J.-The two appellants, Rajendra Singh and Triloki Singh have assailed their conviction and sentence passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Saran in Sessions Trial No. 189 of 1981, which has been upheld in Appeal by the High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 1985. Before the learned Trial Judge in all there were nine accused persons but six of them were acquitted and only two appellants alongwith one Prabhunath Singh were convicted but said Prabhunath died during the pendency of appeal in the High Court, and as such, there are two appellants in this Court. The prosecution case in nutshell is: that on 4th July, 1977 an incident occurred in village Jaidpur Tola Pilui in the district of Saran and one Kameshwar Singh was murdered. Satyanarain PW 8 gave the First Information Report at 6.00 P.M. at Sadar Hospital, Chapra where he was lying injured, alleging therein that at 11.45 a.m. while the informant was getting his field ploughed by a tractor which he had hired from PW 5 these appellants and others came and asked the informant party not to plough the field but when the informant protested he was abused and then accused No. 1 assaulted him by means
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
