SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1810

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. ANAND AND K. THOMAS, JJ.
Binay Kumar Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent.
WITH
Mirtunjay Sharma and Another, Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent.
AND
Rajdeo Sharma and Another, Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent.
AND
Madan Mohan Sharma, Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent.
AND
Kirshan Kumar Sharma and Another, Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent.
AND
Bulak Sharma and Others, Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent.
AND
Surendra Prasad Singh alias Godil Sharma, Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 277 with 403 and 404, 278, 279 and 280-283 of 1987 and 91 of 1994,
D/- 31-10-1996.

Headnote:Constitution of India, Article 134 - Trial Court convicting appellant - Appellant filing appeal in Supreme Court directly without approaching High Court - Appeal held not maintainable, hence conviction and sentence passed on him by the Sessions Court to remain undisturbed. (Para 2)

       Evidence Act 1872, section 3 - Massacre - Identification of assailants - There is no justification in drawing a hiatus between injured witnesses and non injured witnesses as for capacity to identify the assailants while in action - Held - No fault can be found with them as to their inability to identify assailants. (Para 15)

       Evidence Act 1872, section 3 - Appreciation of evidence of eye-witnesses - Re-appreciation of evidence on the strength of some discrepancies which do not appear to be material or serious - Held - Concurrent finding regarding reliability of evidence of those witnesses can not be disturbed. (Para 29)

       Evidence Act 1872, section 11 - "Alibi" - Meaning of - "Alibi" not an exception (special or general) - It is only a rule of evidence recognised in section 11 that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. Strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi. (Para 21 & 22)

       Constitution of India, Article 136 - Appeal by Special leave - Supreme Court can not upset the findings of fact based on wightly reasons. (Para 24)

       Evidence Act 1872, Sections 134 and Penal Code 1860, section 149 - Criminal trial unlawful Assemble - Identification of accused - There is no rule of evidence that no conviction can be based unless a certain minimum number of witnesses have identified a particular accused as a member of unlawful assembly - Evidence is not to be counted but only weighed - It is not the quantity of evidence but the quality that matters - Even the testimony of one single witness if wholly reliable is sufficient to establish identification of an accused - when, size of unlawful assembly is quite large a formula should be adopted to insist all at least two reliable witnesses. (Para 30)

       1971 (1) SCR 599, AIR 1975 SC 1453, AIR 1984 SC 1523, AIR 1952 SC 214 and AIR 1965 SC 202 Ref.

Judgement

THOMAS, J.:- A varitable holocaust took place in a Bihar village (Paras Bigha, in Gaya District) on a moonlit night in early February, 1980. In that massacre lives of 13 human beings were snuffed out and 17 others were badly mauled, a large number of mute cattle were burnt alive and many dwelling houses were gutted. The venue of that macabre was the area where houses of harijans and people belonging to Backward Classes were clustered together in Paras Bigha village. After investigation the police charge-sheet 56 persons for various offences committed in connection with the aforesaid incident, but due to different reason only 44 of them were put on trial. Sessions Court convicted 37 among them of various offences ranging from S. 302, I. P. C. (read with S. 149) to minor offences such as S. 429, I. P. C. and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the principle offence and to lesser terms of imprisonment for the lesser offences. The Patna High Court confirmed the conviction and while dealing with the sentences rectified an illegality in awarding a sentence of imprisonment only for 10 years for the offences under Ss. 302/149, I. P. C. by enhancing to imprisonment for life. The maximum fine imposed by the Sessions Court was reduced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- and made it applicable to all the convicted accused. We are now dealing with the appeals filed by the convicted persons in this Court by special leave.

2. During the pendency of these appeals the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1994 (Surendra Prasad Singh) died and hence his appeal has abated. We may point out that appellant Moiddin Main (ranked as 7th accused in the trial Court) has not filed any appeal before the High Court and hence the conviction and sentence passed on him remained unchallenged. He is one of the many appellants arrayed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 280-283 of 1987 in this Court. But he could not have come to this Court without approaching the High Court in appeal first. We, therefore, record that his appeal before us is not maintainable and hence the conviction and sentence passed on him by the Sessions Court would remain undisturbed. We, therefore, dismiss his appeal filed in this Court.

3. Due to the crowding of many accused persons in this case, we deem it convenient to refer to the individual appellant as far as practicable by the rank in which they were arrayed in the trial Court. We do not think it necessary to mention the facts elaborately, yet a brief narration of the story would be advantageous to deal with the questions raised before us.

4. One Ram Niranjan Sharma (father of A-3 Madan Mohan Sharma) was killed on 28-10-1979 for which the police charge-sheeted certain persons including Sukhdev Bhagat (PW-32) and some other prosecution witnesses who were all inhabitants of the venue of this crime. From then onwards tension was mounting up in this locality. Police patrol as well as bandobust were provided and some measures, such as initiation of security proceedings under S. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) for easing down the tension and to preserve law and order situation, were adopted but the police perambulation was subsequently lifted. On the occurrence night these appellants and a lot of their henchmen formed themselves into an unlawful assembly arming themselves with deadly weapons, guns, rifles and cutting instruments. When the inhabitants of the place of occurrence were sleeping the rioters made a blitz on them around 11 in the night. Many houses occupied by the victims in this case were set on fire and haystacks (heap of straws) were set ablaze. The occupants who emerged out of the burning houses were shot at by the appellant though some of them could escape either by fleeing off or by hiding from the spewing barrels of the fire-arms which prowled for them. When the assailants were satisfied that they had accomplished their object, they all retreated from the scene.

5. The Sub-Inspector
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top