PATNA HIGH COURT
Nagendra Rai and Ashok Kumar Verma JJ.
Krishnanandan Singh Alias Turanta Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 10529 of 1994 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 25, 2000
S. 302, IPC - Land Dispute - Ss. 307, 324 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act - The court discussed the reliability of the eye-witnesses, the medical evidence, and the objective findings of the investigating officer. The trial court's acquittal of the appellant under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act was not interfered with.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, nephew of the deceased, was convicted under S. 302, IPC for causing the death of the deceased during a land dispute. The prosecution's case relied on eye-witness testimony and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the eye-witnesses' testimony reliable, supported by medical evidence and the investigating officer's findings. The trial court's acquittal of the appellant under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act was not interfered with.
Issues: Reliability of eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and investigating officer's findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the reliability of the eye-witnesses, the consistency of their testimony, and the support from medical evidence and objective findings of the investigating officer.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction under S. 302, IPC was upheld.
1. The sole appellant who is the nephew of the deceased Brahamdeo Singh resident of Jalalpur within the Maranchi Police Station in the District of Patna, has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 3-9-1994 by which he has been convicted under S. 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
2. The deceased got property at his in-laws place at village Khairya P.S. Halsi, district Munger and he was residing there along with his family members.
3. The prosecution case is that on 10-3-1992 during the day time the appellant whois nephew of the deceased came at village Khairya and touched the feet of elders. Thereafter at about 3-30 p.m. he went to the Khalihan where deceased was present. The informant Gayatri Devi daughter in-law of the deceased (P.W. 7) also followed him and noticed that the appellant took out a pistol from his person and fired at the deceased which caused injury, he fell down in the Khalihan and thereafter the appellant fled away and the villagers witnessed the occurrence. The appellant is alleged to have committed the offence due to the land dispute.
4. The injured was taken to Government Hospital Lekhisarai for treatment. There informant Gayatri Devi lodged a furdbeyan (Ext. 3) at 7 p.m. which was recorded by A.S.I. of Lakhisarai Police Station. The doctor at Lakhi Surai hospital after having noticed the serious condition of the deceased advised that the injured be taken to P.M. C.R. or Mokoma Hospital and thereafter the informant and other family members proceeded with the injured and in the way at Panchmahal the deceased died and thereafter the informant again lodged the furdbeyan before the Panchmahal P.S. (Ext. 5) on the same day at 11-45 p.m. Both the fardbeyans were forwarded to the Halsi P.S. within the district of Munger for registering a case and on the basis of earlier fardbeyan, recorded at Lakhisarai the Halsi P.S. registered a case under Ss. 307 and 324 of the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. Later on after the information about the death S. 302 of the IPC was also added. The investigation was entrusted to Syed Israt Hussain (P.W. 8) who visited the place of occurrence on 11-3-1992 at about 8-30 a.m. and arrested the appellant who was apprehended and kept confined by the villagers. He conducted the major portion of the investigation and thereafter he was transferred and the investigation was entrusted to P.W. 9, Naresh Pd. Singh, who completed the remaining part of the investigation and thereafter submitted charge sheet.
5. After cognizance and commitment the appellant was put on trial and it ended in the conviction and sentence of the appellant as indicated above.
6. The defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to long dispute as a matter of fact he was not present in the village and later on he was apprehended and brought in the village Kheraiya and was falsely implicated in the present case.
7. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in support of its case out of whom, P.W. 7 the daughter-in-law of the deceased and P.W. 6 Mukesh Singh, the grand son of the deceased and son of P.W. 7 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 1 Rajendra Pd. Singh is the son of the deceased and husband of P.W. 7 and he is not a witness on the point of occurrence. He has stated that after hearing hulla and sound of firing, he came to the Khalihan and found his father lying in injured condition. P.W. 6 and 7 disclosed him that appellant fired at the deceased and injured him. Thereafter he along with his wife and others took his father for treatment at Lakhisarai Sadar Hospital and thereafter when he was taking him to Patna for treatment he died in the way. P.W. 2 Shivratan Singh is the cousin of the appellant and nephew of the deceased and he is witness on the point that after hearing the sound of firing he went to the Khalihan and found the appellant running away with revolver and he was being chased by the villagers. P.W. 3 Ramswarup Sing
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.