Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
J.N.Dubey and G.S.Chaube JJ.
State Of Bihar
Versus
Govind Prasad Singh @ Govind Singh
Death Reference No. 2 of 1995 ;
Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 1995 ; 395 of 1995 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 01, 1998
Murder - Conviction - Evidence - Appreciation - Dying declarations - Non-examination of Magistrate - Prejudice - Right of private defence - Criminal trespass - Ingredients - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Ingredients - Common object - Assembly - Unlawful assembly - Section 302, 307, 326, 148, 149, 147, 104, 103, 99, 97, 441 of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of two persons and causing grievous injuries to two others. The prosecution case was that the deceased and the injured persons went to a disputed paddy field to lodge a protest against harvesting of the crop by the accused persons. The accused persons assaulted them with weapons, resulting in the death of two persons and injuries to the other two. The appellants contended that the entire occurrence took place on the disputed paddy field and not at the well as alleged by the prosecution, and that they acted in the exercise of the right of private defence of property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the evidence of the eyewitnesses, including the two injured witnesses, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court rejected the contention of the appellants that the entire occurrence took place on the disputed paddy field, and held that the initial assault on the deceased commenced at the well. The court also held that the accused persons were not acting in the exercise of the right of private defence of property, as the deceased and the injured persons did not commit any act of criminal trespass or intimidation.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the eyewitnesses was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants? 2. Whether the entire occurrence took place on the disputed paddy field or at the well? 3. Whether the accused persons were acting in the exercise of the right of private defence of property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the eyewitnesses, including the two injured witnesses, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court relied on the fact that the eyewitnesses were consistent in their statements and that their testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence. 2. The court held that the entire occurrence did not take place on the disputed paddy field, but that the initial assault on the deceased commenced at the well. The court relied on the fact that the Investigating Officer had found stains of blood on the ground between the well and the paddy field, and that the autopsy report showed that the deceased had been cut at the neck. 3. The court held that the accused persons were not acting in the exercise of the right of private defence of property, as the deceased and the injured persons did not commit any act of criminal trespass or intimidation. The court held that the deceased and the injured persons merely went to the disputed paddy field to lodge a protest against harvesting of the crop, and that their act did not amount to criminal trespass.
Final Decision: The court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 307, 326, 148, 149, and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The court sentenced the appellants to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 326, and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148. The court also sentenced the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 147, to run concurrently with the sentence for the offence under Section 326.
G.S.Chaube, J.
1. Sole appellant Govind Prasad Singh alias Govind Singh in Cr. Appeal No. 388/95 has been convicted by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge of Banka in Session Case No. 229/77 under Sections 148. 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code ("the Court" in short) and have been condemned to death for offence under Section 302 of the Code. He has been further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 307 of the Code. No separate sentence has been passed for his conviction under Section 148 of the Code. Consequently, his sentence of death has been referred to this Court by the trial Court for confirmation under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said reference has been registered as Death Reference No. 2/95.
2. The appellants other than appellant No. 9 in Cr. Appeal No. 395/95 are convicted in same sessions case under Sections 147. 302 read with Section 149 and 307 read with Section 140 of the Code and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence i-nder Section 307 read with Section 149 of the Code. No Separate sentence has been awarded to them for the offence under Section 147 of the Code. Appellant No. 9 Gulli Rai @ Gulabi Rai has. however, been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 with the aid of Section 149 of the Code and sentenced to the same terms of imprisonment as his co-appellants. The sentences of all the appellants aire directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case as disclosed in the first information report lodged by Chawkidar Mahadeo Hajra of village Baratikar with Banka police at 1 .(X) p.m. on 23.11.1969 is that there was a piece of land measuring about 10 katlias at village Khaira within Banka Police Station in the district of Bhagalpur (now Banka). the ownership of which was in dispute between Narain Singh (Kahar) and his agnate Laxman Singh, Both of the same village. Paddy crops had been grown over the said piece off land. In the morning on that day, i.e. 23.11.1969, while the said Chawkidar was away from his village the said Laxman Singh, his two sons and 3 to 4 others were getting the paddy crops of the said disputed piece of land harvested with the help of 5 to 7 reapers. Laxman Singh and his associates were then armed with weapons. His agnate Narain Singh (deceased) went to the field with his wife and his younger brother"s wife to lodge protest . It led to an altercation between the parties. Consequently, Laxman Singh killed deceased Narain Singh and inquired his wife and sister-in-law. According to the; first information report, when Chawkidar Mahadeo Hajra returned to his village from Phoolahra where he had been to the preceding night, he came to know of the occurrence and went to village Khaira to learn from a few villagers including appellant No. 7 Makeshwar Singh of what had happened there. Consequently, he went to the paddy field to find Narain Singh lying dead and the two women of his family, namely, wife and sister-in-law. severely injured. The neck of deceased Narain Singh was also almost completely slit. He also found paddy crop from an area of about half a katha harvested on the western side of the disputed field. Leaving the dead and the injured at the paddy field where they had fallen, the Chawkidar Mahadeo Haja went to Banka police station and lodged the first information report (Ext. 1).
4. From the record of the Court below it further transpires that a daughter (PW 2) and the niece (PW 4) of deceased Narain Singh tied from he village on seeing the occurrence. They reached a place called Pun-sia where they happened to come across PW 5 Deep Chandra Prasad Singh, a brother of the deceased Narain Singh, who was coming home from Sahebganj where he was engaged in some trade. They narrated the incident to him Consequently. PW 5 went to the place of the occurrence to find deceased Narain Singh and his daughter Deb
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
