Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
B.P.Singh and A.N.Trivedi JJ.
Kunj Bihari Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1992 ; 294 of 1992 ;
Decided On : MARCH 15, 1999
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - MOTIVE - INDEPENDENT WITNESSES - PART OF BODY HIT BY GUNSHOT - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - BAIL CANCELLATION.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a fatal shooting incident in which the deceased, Rajgrihi Singh, was killed, and two others, Jitendra Singh and Chhatri Singh, were injured. The prosecution alleged that the Appellants, armed with guns and a lathi, attacked the victims in the Sahan of the Informant's house. The deceased was shot by Appellants Nagendra Singh and Rajendra Singh, while Jitendra Singh was shot by Appellant Anil Singh, and Chhatri Singh was assaulted by Appellant Kunj Bihari Singh. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the Informant's Ferdbeyan to establish the guilt of the Appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The eyewitness accounts were consistent and corroborated by the medical evidence. The court rejected the defense's arguments that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive for the crime, that independent witnesses had not been examined, and that the witnesses had not specified the part of the body where the gunshot injuries were caused. The court held that the Appellants had been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the eyewitness testimony was reliable and consistent. 3. Whether the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case. 4. Whether the prosecution had failed to prove the motive for the crime. 5. Whether the non-examination of independent witnesses affected the prosecution's case. 6. Whether the witnesses' failure to specify the part of the body hit by the gunshot injuries weakened the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on the eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the Informant's Ferdbeyan. 2. The court found that the eyewitness accounts were consistent and corroborated by the medical evidence, and that the minor discrepancies did not affect the core of the prosecution's case. 3. The court rejected the defense's argument that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive for the crime, holding that the strained relationship between the two families provided a sufficient basis for the attack. 4. The court held that the non-examination of independent witnesses did not affect the prosecution's case since there was no evidence to suggest that they were eyewitnesses. 5. The court held that the witnesses' failure to specify the part of the body hit by the gunshot injuries did not weaken the prosecution's case, given the circumstances of the incident.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Appeals, upholding the convictions and sentences imposed by the Trial Court. The bail bonds of the Appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 288 of 1992 were canceled, and they were directed to be taken into custody to serve out their sentences.
1. These two Appeals arise out of the judgment and order of the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram dated 1/22.6.1992. The Appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 288 of 1992 are Kunj Bihari Singh, Anil Singh and Bikash Singh while the Appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 294 of 1992 are Rajendra Singh And Nagendra Singh. Appellants Rajendra Singh and Nagendra Singh have been found guilty of the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. They have also been found guilty of the offence under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each.
2. Appellants Anil Singh and Kunj Bihari Singh have been convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000.00 each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. They have also been found guilty of the offence under Sec. 307/34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. They have also been found guilty of the offence under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each.
3. Appellant Bikash Singh has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec. 302/34 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years under Sec. 107/34, LP.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 , and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year all the sentences have been directed to run concurtently.
4. The prosecution case is that an occurrence took place at about 7.00 p.m. on 14.4.1990 in the Sahan of the Informant, P.W. 6 in which it is alleged that the Appellants came variously armed and as a result of the assault by them Rajgrihi Singh died while Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 and Chhatri Singh received injuries. After the incident, the injured were taken to the Hospital at Bikramganj where Rajgrihi Singh was declared dead. At the said Hospital the Ferdbeyan of Ram Pravesh Singh, P.W. 6 was recorded by K.P. Orao, A.S.I, attached to the Bikramganj Police Station at about 10.30 p.m. In the said Ferdbeyan the Informant, P.W. 6 stated that on the date of occurrence at about 7.00 p.m. he was on the terrace of his house along with his sistess daughter, Guddi and was collecting paddy. His uncle Rajgrihi Singh was sitting in front of the southern room of his house. Suddenly, appellants Rajendra Singh armed with a double barrel gun, Nagendra Singh also armed with double barrel gun, Anil Singh armed with country-made pistol, Bikash Singh armed with lathi and Kunj Bihari Singh armed with small gun came. Nagendra Singh fired a shot at his uncle Rajgrihi Singh as a result of which Rajgrihi Singh was injured and fell down. Rajendra Singh also fired at him. On hearing the sound of gun firing, the Informants brother, Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 came running to his uncle but Anil Singh fired from his gun at Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 injuring him. Jitendra Singh also fell down. Chhatri Singh, the uncle of the Informant tried to save Jitendra Singh but Kunj Bihari Singh fired at him and injured him as a result of which he fell down. Bikash Singh assaulted Chhatri Singh with his lathi. The informant claimed that saw the occurrence from the terrace of his house. Many villagers assembled on hearing the gun shots and the Appellants ran away. The Informant came down from the terrace and found Rajgrihi Singh Jitendra Singh, P.W. 5 and Chhatri Singh injured by fire-arms. With the help of his family members and villagers, all the three injured were brought to the Bikramganj Hospital for treatment. On th
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
