The judgment emphasizes the importance of carefully evaluating eyewitness testimony, rejecting improbable defense pleas, and establishing motive in criminal cases.

Headnote:
Eyewitness Account - Criminal Trial - IPC Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and Section 27 of the Arms Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and Section 27 of the Arms Act - The judgment discusses the eyewitness account, the credibility of witnesses, the rejection of the plea of accidental fire, and the importance of motive in establishing guilt.
Fact of the Case:

The accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 302/148 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act for the murder of the deceased. The High Court acquitted all the accused based on the eyewitnesses' account and the presence of enmity between the parties.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court's findings were deemed erroneous, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The eyewitnesses' testimony was considered credible and the acquittal was deemed perverse.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of eyewitnesses, rejection of the plea of accidental fire, and the significance of motive in establishing guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the testimony of inimical witnesses with caution and diligence. The rejection of the plea of accidental fire was justified based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The appeal against the accused was allowed, and the order of the trial court regarding the conviction of the accused under the relevant sections was restored. The accused's bail bonds were cancelled, and he was directed to be taken into custody.

Judgment

H.K. SEMA, J.- Ten accused persons were put to trial for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act before the IInd Additional Sessions judge, Arrah m Sessions Trial No. 366 of 1982. After conclusion of the trial, . the tnal court convicted Accused 2 Jagdish Singh Rai (the respondent herem) for the offences under Sections 302/148 IPC and under Section 27 of the A.rms A.ct. He was sentenced to undergo RI for life under Section 302 \PC and two Years Rl under Section 148 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo RI for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The remaining nine accused (not before us) were convicted under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 and sentenced to undergo RI for life and two years RI under Section 148 respectively. Their sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.

2. Aggrieved thereby, two appeals have been preferred before the High Court of Patna. Criminal Appeal No. 596 of 1986 was preferred by nine accused and Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1987 was preferred by Accused 2 Jagdish Singh alias Jagdish Rai, separately. By a common judgment, the High Court acquitted all the accused. Hence, the present appeal by special leave. The State has not filed any appeal. The present appeal has been filed by the brother of the deceased with permission to file the SLPs.

3, On 3-12-1999, this Court dismissed the SLPs against all the accused persons except the second accused Jagdish Singh. This is how the present appeal has survived against Accused 2 Jagdish Singh Rai.

4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

The Officer-in-charge, Dumraon PS recorded the fardbeyan of Ramashish Rai alias Gana Rai (PW 10) to the effect that on 21-3-1986 between 8 to 9 p.m. when the informant was sitting along with his deceased brother Sudershan Rai, the FIR-named accused persons came hurling abuses carrying lethal weapons like gun, rifle, bhala, country-made gun, etc. and Accused 2 Jagdish Singh was shouting that the Score would be settled today,whereafter the deceased proceeded towards the accused persons with a view to pacify them and requesting them not to indulge in violence, whereupon the accused Jagdish Singh Rai opened blank fire from his rifle twice. The accused Jagdish Singh also fired the third shot from his rifle which hit the deceased Sudershan Rai and he died on the spot. Then and there the a informant snatched away his rifle and the said rifle was produced before the police officer who recorded fardbeyan. On hearing the hullah PWs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 also came in and witnessed the incident.

5. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses out of which PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and 10 were examined as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The trial court, on threadbare discussion of the eyewitness account and medical evidence, convicted the accused as aforesaid.

6. The High Court, by its order impugned, discarded the eyewitnesses account of the occurrence in para 20 of its judgment as under:

"From overall scrutiny of evidence of prosecution witnesses it is apparent that there was long-standing enmity between the two parties, for which civil as well as criminal cases were fought up to the High Court. Secondly, most of the eyewitnesses have admitted that in counter-case filed by the appellant Jagdish Singh either they or their sons and relatives were made accused. Thirdly, almost all the eyewitnesses have deliberately tried to improve the prosecution case by deposing d something, which is not to be found either from the FIR or from the evidence of the informant himself. So far means of identification is concerned, there is contradictory statement. The 10 also did not find any light near about the place of occurrence. Thus, in between 8.30 p.m. to 9 p.m. in a village lane it was difficult for the so-called eyewitnesses to identify the appellants. The evidence of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document