Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
A.M. Badar and Sunil Kumar Panwar, JJ.
Vijay Krishna and Ors. – Appellants
versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.44 of 2014 with
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.165 of 2014 with
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.167 of 2014 with
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.211 of 2014
Decided on 20.5.2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34, 201/34 and Section 120(B) – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Murder, disappearance of evidence and conspiracy – Conviction and sentence – There is no direct evidence to prove crime – Whole prosecution case is based on circumstances – In case of circumstantial evidence, motive is required to be proved in respect of commission of murder of deceased – Statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C have been falsified by witnesses – To prove case based on circumstantial evidence, motive behind occurrence is necessary – There is no reason to believe that appellants, in conspiracy with each other have committed murder of deceased without any plausible reason – Evidence given by driver of deceased is beyond reasonable thought – He is a man of apathy – Life of a person was in danger but he had adopted a lackadaisical view to not inform to concerned, his family members or Police about conspiracy of commission of murder – Evidence of this witness is not trustworthy and consistent – Prosecution has failed to prove that blood stained seized from Flat is matching with blood of deceased – Prosecution has failed to establish that under what circumstance, dead body came out of locked box – Identification of dead body was not challenged by prosecution side – From materials available on record, it is established that deceased and appellants were residing in Patna at the time of occurrence and they all have good relations with each other – Connection between culprit and victim may be taken into consideration when they are strangers and unknown to each other – Circumstances from which inference as to guilt of accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to substantiate the prosecution case and bringing home charge levelled against appellants beyond all reasonable doubts by adducing consistent, trustworthy and reliable evidence – No one of vicinity of place of occurrence supports prosecution version – Trial Court has wrongly upheld guilt of accused without any reliable and circumstantial evidence – Appellants acquitted from all charges levelled against them. (Paras 52, 59, 60, 62, 64,
67, 69, 70, 72, 74 to 78)
Result: Appeals allowed. Appellants acquitted.
JUDGMENT (CAV)
Sunil Kumar Panwar, J.—Heard the parties.
2. The appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 2nd of December, 2013 and the order of sentence dated 4th of December, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Xth, Patna in connection with Sessions Trial Nos. 1007 of 2010, 1008 of 2010 and 1009 of 2010, arising out of Shri Krishna Puri P.S. Case No.110 of 2009.
3. By the aforesaid judgment dated 2nd of December, 2013, the appellant/Chankya @ Guddu has been convicted under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act whereas other appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C).
4. After hearing the convicts on the point of sentence, vide consequential order dated 4th of December, 2013, the Trial Court sentenced the appellant/Chankya @ Guddu to undergo imprisonment for life, fine of rupees twenty five thousands and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for three years, fine of rupees five thousands and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years, fine of rupees five thousands and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant/Vijay Krishna has been directed to undergo imprisonment for life, fine of rupees twenty five thousands and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for three years, fine of rupees five thousands and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants Umesh Prasad Singh and Gagan Kumar have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life, fine of rupees five thousands each and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for three years, fine of rupees one thousand each and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were not sentenced under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5. The Sessions Trial in which the impugned judgment and order was passed relates to the First Information Report (in short ‘F.I.R’) that had been registered on 24.05.2009 as Shri Krishna Puri P.S. Case No. 110 of 2009 under Sections 365, 364, 302, 201, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
6. The prosecution case as recapitulated hereunder is based on the written report of Girish Prasad Singh (P.W. 1) who has stated that on 23.05.2009, his younger brother Satyendra Prasad Singh (deceased) went out from his house along with his relative appellant/Vijay Krishna, Ex. M.P in the morning by Sumo Victa car and got down at Guinni Motors, Boring Canal Road and told to appellant/Vijay Krishna to go as he would have to go for by-election after taking bath and meal. However, when after a considerable period of time, he did not return home, the informant contacted him on his mobile numbers but both numbers were found switched off. Thereafter, an information was given to the police control room in the late night. In the next morning, one of the mobile numbers of the brother of the informant was found busy but after several attempts, no response was made from the other side. The informant raised a suspicion that his brother might have been kidnapped.
7. On the basis of the written application of the informant, o
Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible ....
Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased is....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of thoroughly analyzing witness testimonies, considering contradictions, and ensuring strict compliance with the law in using police statements for contradictio....
The court affirmed the conviction of the appellants for murder based on circumstantial evidence and valid identification, while acquitting one appellant due to insufficient evidence.
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
