Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
B.N.Sinha and Nunumani Prasad Singh JJ.
Shayam Nandan Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 1988 ;
Decided On : MAY 9, 1991
Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - S. 302, S. 354 IPC - [S. 302, S. 354 IPC] - The court discussed the relevance of circumstantial evidence and the requirement for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the importance of putting all circumstances to the accused during examination and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the discharge of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Surji Devi. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness accounts and the first information report (FIR). The appellants claimed to be falsely implicated due to previous enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the lack of direct or circumstantial evidence linking the appellants to the murder. It also noted the failure to put all circumstances to the accused during examination.
Issues: The key issues included the reliance on circumstantial evidence, the credibility of eyewitnesses, and the failure to put all circumstances to the accused during examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of putting all circumstances to the accused during examination, and the need for conclusive evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and discharged the appellants from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
B.N.SINHA, J.
1. These three appellants who are full brothers were tried by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions trial No.35/88, 559/86 in respect of murder of Surji Devi allegedly committed on 11th of March. 1986 in village Akhanpur, P.S. Tekari, District-Gaya and they have been convicted under S. 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. The case of the prosecution as presented before the Court through witnesses may be briefly stated. On 11-3-1986 Mungeshwari Devi (since dead) along with her daughter Surji Devi (the deceased) had gone to her land in Bagicha Baghar for harvesting Masuri crop. At about 5.30 p.m. Surji Devi began to make bundles of the harvested Masuri crop. At that very time these three accused suddenly came there from north direction. Accused Shayam Nandan Singh was armed with a Pasuli and he asked Surji Devi not to remove the bundles of Masuri crop and they caught hold of the Masuri bundles. Thereafter they felled down Surji Devi the deceased on the ground and tried to rape her. Surji Devi - the deceased raised alarm. But accused Brijnandan Singh and Jainandan Singh caught hold of her arms and accused Shayam Nandan Singh cut her neck with Pasuli and thereafter the accused persons fled away. On hearing alarm P.Ws. Suba Yadav, Ram Lakhan Yadav, Karu Yadav, Kameshewar Yadav and Birja Yadav ran towards the place of occurrence. P.Ws. Suba Yadav, Ram Lakhan Yadav, Kameshwar Yadav and Birja Yadav saw the accused persons fleeing away. On reaching to the place of occurrence P.Ws. found the dead body of Surji Devi the deceased, lying on the ground with injury, her neck in pool of blood. Mungeshwari Devi (since dead) narrated about the occurrence to these P.Ws. and thereafter Mungeshwari Devi went to the Police Station along with these P.Ws. and Chaukidar Brij Kishore Paswan (not examined) to lodge information.
3. On the statement of Mungeshwari Devi (since dead) P.W. 8 Suresh Singh recorded the first information report (Exhibit 2) on the same night, i.e. on 12-3-1986 at 1. 30 a.m. After usual investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session and the trial proceeded.
4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that they have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity and that the prosecution witnesses have themselves committed murder of Surji Devi somewhere in the village and brought her dead body to the place of occurrence and altogether a false case has been hoisted against these accused.
5. The prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses. Out of them P. W. 3 Karu Yadav and P.W. 11 Raja Yadav were tendered by the prosecution . P. W. 10 S akaldeo Yadav is a formal witness, who has proved his singature Exhibit-1 I on the FIR (Exhibit-2). P.W. I Suba Yadav, P.W. 2 Ram Lakhahn Yadav, P.W. 4 Kameshwar Yadav and P.W. 5 Birja Yadav, claimed to have gone towards the place of occurrence on hearing alarm and saw the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 Ganauri Yadav claimed to have learnt about the occurrence from Mungeshwari Devil P.W. 6 Lakshman Yadav is father of the deceased and on the date of occurrence he was at Patna and on being informed regarding the incident he came to his village home and came to learn about the occurrence from his wife Mungeshwari Devi. P.Ws. 5 and 7 are also witnesses on inquest report in respect of the dead -body of the deceased Surji Devi. P.W. 8 Suresh Singh is the Investigation Officer of the case, P.W. 9 Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha held post-mortem examination on the deadbody of the deceased.
6. Learned trial Court placing reliance mainly on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3, and 4 has accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused under Ss.302/34 I.P.C. It appears that all these accused persons were also charged under S. 354 I.P.C. and accused Shyam Nandan
AI
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
