Back
2002(2) Crimes 437 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Patna High Court)
R.P. Sethi and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Bijoy Singh & Anr. —Appellants
versus
State of Bihar —Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1339-1340 of 1999
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1341 of 1999
Decided on 17-4-2002
Held : There is no denial of the fact as it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that Jawahar Singh (A-2) and Upender Singh (A-3) had come on spot with fire arms and had actually fired at the deceased and Sanuj Singh as a consequence of which Vijay Singh died and Sanuj Singh was injured. Whereas A-2 is held guilty for the commission of offence under Section 302 and 307 read with Section 34, A-3 is held responsible for the commission of the offence under Sections 307 and 302 read with Section 34. The conviction and sentence awarded to Jawahar Singh (A-2) and Upender Singh (A-3) by the trial court and upheld by the High Court is confirmed. So far as the presence of other accused persons are concerned, the same being doubtful, they cannot be convicted on the ground of sharing common object as held by the courts vide the judgments impugned in these appeals. Merely because the aforesaid accused persons are related to A-2 and A-3, and were on inimical terms with the deceased and the injured is no ground to hold them guilty despite the fact that there presence on spot is not free from doubt. There is reasonable doubt in our mind regarding the involvement of rest of the accused persons in the commission of crime in which Vijay Singh died and Sanuj Singh was injured. Giving the benefit of doubt , to Ramanandan Singh (A-1), Chulhan Singh @ Ramswarath Singh (A-4), Kamta Singh (A-5), Mahendra Singh (A-6), Ashok Singh (A-7), Navin Singh (A-8), Devendra Singh (A-9), Manoj Singh (A-10) and Vijay Singh (A-12), their conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court is liable to be set aside. (Para 11)
(ii) Criminal Trial—Practice and Procedure—Judicial precedent—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 149—Conviction of 12 with the aid of Section 149—11 appealed to apex court—One Awadesh Singh (A17) who was a co-accused did not appeal—Appellate Court finding that no conviction of any co-accused is possible due to doubtful circumstantial evidence—Whether benefit be given to the co-accused (A12), similarly situated, though he has not challenged the order by way of appeal? (Yes)—Case law referred.
Held : Awadesh Singh (A-11) who was also convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC has not filed an appeal in this Court. In view of the judgments of this Court in Raja Ram & Ors. v. State of M.P. [1994 (2) SCC 568], Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P. [1999(7) SCC 69] and Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [JT 2001(6) SC 2001] he is also entitled to the benefit of this judgment. This Court has set up a judicial precedent that where on evaluation of the case if the court reaches the conclusion that no conviction of any accused is possible, the benefit of that decision must be extended to the co-accused, similarly situated, though he has not challenged the order by way of an appeal. (Para 12)
Held finally : Under the circumstances the appeals are partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to Jawahar Singh (A-2) and Upender Singh (A-3) is upheld. Giving them the benefit of doubt Ramanandan Singh (A-1), Chulhan Singh @ Ramswarath Singh (A-4), Kamta Singh (A-5), Mahendra Singh (A-6), Ashok Singh (A-7), Navin Singh (A-8), Devendra Singh (A-9), Manoj Singh (A-10), Awdesh Singh (A-11) and Vijay Singh (A-12) are acquitted. The acquitted persons shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in some other case. (Para 13)
JUDGMENT
Sethi, J.—Though sad, yet it is a fact that people do not hesitate in restoring to vengeance even on the unfortunate deaths of their nears and dears. There is a tendency to rope in as many people as possible for facing the trial relating to the death or injuries to the unfortunate victims. Sometimes it is over-enthusiasm and many a times designed effort to harass the relations and friends of the real culprits. It has been found that on occasions innocent persons including aged, infirm, ladies and children are booked for standing at the dock and remain confined in jails till the pendency of the cases. Some are acquitted by the trial court and many by the appellate courts but only after their languishing in confinements for years. Such efforts of unscrupulous survivors of the crime or the relations of the victims invariably but unfortunately helps the real culprits as it becomes difficult for the court to sift the grain out of the chaff. Under such circumstances and in view of the prevalent criminal jurisprudential system in the country, the doctrine of presumption of innocence in favour of the accused makes the justice itself a victim which ultimately weakens the criminal justice dispensation system. Be that as it may, an onerous duty is cast upon the criminal courts in the country to ensure that no innocent is convicted and deprived of his fundamental liberties. However, in cases of group clashes and organised crimes, persons beyond the screen, executing the crime should not be allowed to get scot free. In cases involving number of accused persons, a balance approach by the courts is required to be insisted upon. Neither any innocent person should be convicted nor a guilty acquitted under the cloak and cover of the loose and liberal interpretations of the statutory provisions and the technicalities of procedural wrangles. In cases of arson and murder where large number of people are accused of committing the crime, the courts should be cautious to rely upon the testimony of witnesses speaking generally and in an omnibus way without specific reference to the accused or the role played by them.
2. For the death of Vijay Singh aged 16 years and for attempting to murder Sanuj Singh (PW5) 12 persons including the appellants were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 149, 307 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the accused belong to one clan and very closely related to each other. The trial court convicted all of them under section 302, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 and 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act. No separate sentence was passed for the offence under Section 307 in view of the life imprisonment. Appeals filed by the accused persons were dismissed by the High Court vide judgment impugned in this case. In these appeals all the accused persons, except Awadhesh Singh (A-11) have challenged the judgments of the courts below.
3. It was alleged by the prosecution that on the day of Shravan Purnima falling on 25th August, 1991 at about 5 p.m., the deceased Vijay Singh along with Sanuj Singh (PW5) had gone to Thakurbari situated at Tarawanna Khanda of Village Dhanawana for offering puja in the temple on the occasion of Raksha Bandan. While they were in the temple, all the accused persons, armed with fire arms, came firing from all the directions. On the extortion of Ram Nandan Singh (A1), Jawahar Singh (A-2) fired from his gun at Vijay Singh who was injured and fell near the well outside Thakurbari. When Sanuj Singh (PW5) started running towards South, he was also fired at by Upender Singh (A-3), in consequence of which he also fell in the field. Thereafter Upender Singh further assaulted Sanuj Singh by the butt of his fire arm. The occurrence is stated to have been witnessed by witnesses, namely, Kamala Singh (PW2), Bankey Singh (PW2) Gano Singh (PW4) and
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
