2008(6) Supreme 81
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Arjun Mahto — Appellant
versus
State of Bihar — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 2001
Decided on : 13-08-08
Facts of the Case :
1.Accused persons sixteen in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for entering into house of informant causing death of one person of his family and injuries to several others by deadly weopans and for looting away household properties. Trial Court while convicting appellants five in number acquitted eleven co accused persons. On Appeals thereagainst, High Court while upholding conviction of appellants altered it from from Section 396 to Section 395 IPC.
2.Present appeals have been filed on plea that Witnesses being related to deceased their evidence should not be accepted.
Findings of the Court :
Held merely because eye-witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. Instantly, evidence of injured witness PW 4 was of vital importance. Similar was case of PW 2 -Even though PWs 1 & 3 had not been fully believed. Yet credibility of evidence of PWs 2 & 4 could not be doubted on that score.So far as acquittal of one Dr. ‘S’ was concerned, trial court and High Court doubted prosecution version so far as he was concerned because he was not named in the FIR. It being a serious case of dacoity, any leniency in sentence held not only undesirable but also improper.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Judgment
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —
1.These three appeals have a common matrix and Judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court. By the impugned Judgment, the State’s appeal was dismissed while in the case of present appellants their conviction was altered from Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) to Section 395 IPC. The sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life was altered to seven years rigorous imprisonment.
2.Factual position in a nutshell is as follows :
The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, as contained in the Fardbayan (Ext.2) of the informant Yusuf Ali Khan son of Khalil Bux Khan (P.W.4) is as follows :
The Fardbayan was recorded at the P.O. Village Khaira, P.S. Auras, District Gaya at 8 p.m. relating to the alleged occurrence of 7 p.m. on the same day on 15.03.1983. The Fardbayan was recorded by Mohd. Asfaque Ali (P.W.5), the officer incharge of Bankey Bazar outpost. It is alleged that the informant was at his house at about 7 p.m. Suddenly 10 armed persons entered into the house through the open door.
One of them fired twice from the gun making the informant injured. He fled inside the room. He was dragged into the courtyard where his father Khalil Bux Khan (P.W. 3), and his brother-Nausher Ali Khan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased) were sitting. On the deceased Nausher Ali Khan injuries with Pharsa and gun shot was caused while Khalil Bux Khan (P.W.3) suffered injuries with lathi and Pharsa. It is mentioned in the fardbeyan that the man who caused injuries to the informant with gun shot was of fair complexion and a tall man whose name he did not know. In the meantime 20-25 more persons entered through the door and inside the house and began looting away the household properties. Among them the informant identified as many as 12 persons namely, (1) Bindeshwari Sao (2) Suraj Pasi (3) Ram Lal Chamar, (4) Baijnath Mishra, (5) Bishaum Singh, (6) Arjun Mahato (7) Basudeo Yadav, (8) a teacher of Bankey Bazar High School resident of village Barka Jamuara, (9) Ram Swarup Ram (10) Lalu Khan and (11) Vijoy Yadav and Sammid Ahmed Khan. The source of identification was the light of lantern burning in the house. The value and the list of the articles was to be furnished subsequently. Altogether 70-80 dacoits were alleged to have participated in the dacoity. While retreating the dacoits were rising slogans “M.C.C. Zindabad”. After the dacoits had left, the informant came to know that dacoits had also entered into the house of his uncle and grandfather and after causing injuries to them they had also looted away a Licensee gun from their house.
It is said that during investigation after recording the Fardbayan and formal F.I.R. (Ext.3) the I.O. sent the injured persons to the hospital for their medical treatment. Some of the accused persons were also placed in the T.I. Parade and some of the accused were identified by the witnesses in the T.I. Parade. One of the injured named Nausher Ali Khan was removed to Calcutta hospital, where he died, from Magadh Hospital Gaya for further treatment whose P.M. Report was procured by the I.O. from Park Street Police Calcutta.
After investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the officer against some of the accused persons named in the F.I.R and also against some of the accused who were identified in the T.I. Parade and also against some of these who were named subsequently by the witnesses before the investigating police officer whose names neither figured in the F.I.R. nor were said to have been identified in the test identification parade. Some of the accused named in the F.I.R. were not sent up by the police for trial. However, some of them were made accused by the Orders of the trial court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’). Some of the P.Ws were already examined before charge was Ordered to be framed against four of the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which resulted in the de novo trial of all the accus
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.