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

2013 Supreme(SC) 948

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. CHAUHAN & S.A. BOBDE, JJ.
Gulam Sarbar - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1316 of 2012
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1967 of 2012
Decided On : October 7, 2013

IMPORTANT POINTS
Meeting of minds is necessary to sustain allegation of conspiracy.
The quality of evidence and not its quantity determines its adequacy.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B - For attracting section 120-B meeting of minds has to be shown - Mere knowledge or discussion or generation of a crime in the mind of the accused, is not sufficient to constitute criminal conspiracy - However mere knowledge of main object/ purpose of the conspiracy would suffice - Presence of co-accused at the initial stage of offence will attract section 120-B. (Paras 5 and 6)

        AIR 1988 SC 1883; AIR 2005 SC 3820; AIR 2010 SC 528; (2009) 6 SCC 564; (2009) 8 SCC 617; AIR 2010 SC 1812; (2010) 8 SCC 233; (2008) 15 SCC 49; AIR 2010 SC 1007 - Relied upon

        (b) Criminal Trial - Cross examination - Appellants citing non-examination of witnesses as circumstance vitiating the proceeding in the court below - No questions having been asked during cross examination, appellants cannot take advantage of their own omission. (Para 12)

        AIR 2013 SC 1204; AIR 1999 SC 3571; AIR 2008 SC 1425; JT 2013 (8) SC 181; JT 2013 (10) SC 515 - Relied upon

        (c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 134 - Evidence - Should be weighed and not counted - It is the quality and not quantity that determines adequacy of evidence. (Para 14)

        AIR 1957 SC 614; AIR 2008 SC 1381; AIR 2010 SC 3638; (2011) 9 SCC 626; (2012) 1 SCC 10; JT 2013( 1) SC 222 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        In this case the affirmation of conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302 read with 120-B, IPC by High Court has been challenged.

       Finding of the Court:

        The impugned does not require interference.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeals (DB) Nos. 273 of 1998 (R) and 262 of 1998 (R) affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.8.1998 and 31.8.1998 respectively passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 1997, by which and whereunder, the appellants in both these appeals stood convicted alongwith others, namely, Binod Kumar, Asgar Mian @ Asgar Ansari, Paiki Ramm @ Poki Ramm and Mantu Das under Sections 302 read with 120- B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the `IPC’) and sentenced to undergo RI for life.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that: A. As per the case of the prosecution, Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (PW.7), informant/complainant was going alongwith Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased), to Rajganj, Dhanbad on his motorcycle at about 8.00 P.M. on 6.9.1996. When they reached near Sant Nirankari Chowk, they saw a scooter and a motorcycle parked at the side of the road and six persons including the appellants were standing in the close proximity thereof, and they signalled the complainant to stop. The complainant stopped his motorcycle and enquired as to why they were waiting. But within no time, Yakub Ansari and Dhiren Mahto - appellant took out their pistols from their waist and pointed towards them and asked why Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) was disturbing the working of the institute run by Binod Kumar. They threatened Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) to remain away from the institute. Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) asked the accused persons how they were related to running the affairs of the institute, which led to an exchange of hot words between the deceased and the accused persons. Accused Asgar started inflicting blows by means of a knife and told his companions to complete the task for which they had come. Immediately, Yakub opened fire at point blank range from his revolver on the left side of the neck of Sant Kumar Sinha (deceased) due to which the deceased collapsed and died immediately. The informant/complainant being scared ran away from the place of occurrence, leaving his motorcycle at the spot. He met a police party to whom he narrated the incident. On the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant, a case under Sections 302/120- B/379 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Arms Act’) against the accused, including both the appellants, was registered vide FIR No. 175 of 1996. Thus, the investigation ensued accordingly.

B. After the conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all the accused, showing Yakub @ Ayub as an absconder. Accordingly, the trial vide S.T. No. 112 of 1997 commenced. The co- accused Yakub @ Ayub was apprehended later and was tried separately vide S.T. No. 405 of 1998.

C. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including Mithilesh Kumar Sinha (PW.1) – real brother of the deceased, Arvind Kumar (PW.2) – cousin of deceased, Dr. Dhiraj (PW.6), who conducted the post-mortem examination, Dr. Gopal Prasad Sinha (PW.7), informant/complainant and brother of deceased and Jagdish Prasad (PW.8), the Investigating Officer.

D. The defence also examined three witnesses. Gurpreet Singh Mittal (DW.1), was examined only to prove that there was no light in Sant Nirankari Bhawan at the relevant point of time, and further to show that Nirankari Chowk was at a distance of about 200-250 feet away from Nirankari Bhawan. Vijay Kumar Singh (DW.2) and Suresh Dass (DW.3) were merely formal witnesses.

E. As per the case of the prosecution, Gulam Sarbar, appellant ran away on Yakub’s motorcycle after the incident. He was chased by the police and arrested at a short distance from the place of occurrence after he jumped a police barricade.

F. Similarly, Dhiren Mahto left the place of occurrence on L

























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