Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Shiva Kirti Singh and Dharnidhar Jha JJ.
Asharfi Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 1993 ; 545 of 1993 ; 547 of 1993 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 22, 2007
Indian Penal Code 1860-Section 302 r/w Section 35 & 72 of the Evidence Act-Murder-Motive-Relevancy-Admissibility of a document in imputing motive-The genesis of the occurrence and the reason for its commission i.e., the motive is not of much importance in case of direct oral evidence-However, in the present case, the trial Court, utilising the certified copy of the deposition of a witness in the counter case (Ext. E), coming to conclusion that the parties were on inimical terms-The Ext. E might be admissible by virtue of being the copy of a public document or record but a judge could not receive the document as evidence in a particular case-Deposition of a witness recorded by a judge and a legally issued copy thereof is definitely an admissible document, but it can be used only for the purpose of finding out as to who the witness was and in which case he deposed to-Ext. E could not have been utilised for recording a finding. (Paras 23 & 24)
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Evidence of witnesses not inspiring confidence-Story of occurrence taking place at the darwaja of informant not acceptable-Injuries suffered by accused-appellants not explained-The inference of exercising right of private defence by the appellants can be drawn in such circumstances-The informant not telling the truth-Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 25, 26, 30 & 34)
AIR 1975 SC 300, 1977 BBCJ 400, 1997 (2) PLJR 1 (SC), 2004 (4) PLJR 123 (SC), 1993 Cr. L.J. 3904, AIR 1976 SC 2263, AIR 1990 SC 1459-Referred to.
DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.
1. Nine accused persons were jointly charged for offences under Sections 147, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code by the 3rd Addi- tional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 1990. Sidhi Singh was separately charged under Sec- tion 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Similarly ac- cused Daroga Singh was also charged with Sidhi Singh under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Both accused Sidhi Singh and Daroga Singh were further charged along with third accused Mithilesh Singh under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Mithilesh Singh was sepa- rately charged under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Four out of the nine accused namely Asharfi Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Ram Pukar Singh and Bhagwat Singh were jointly charged under Section 380 I.P.C. The nine accused persons namely Asharfi Singh, Shalik Singh @ Shaligram Singh, Ram Pukar Singh, Bhagat Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Kusheshwar Singh, Sidhi Singh, Mithilesh Singh and Daroga Singh were found guilty of commit- ting various offences by the learned Judge by the judgment and order of conviction dated 16.10.1993. Accused Sidhi Singh, Mithlesh Singh and Daroga Singh were found guilty and convicted under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code while the remaining six ac- cused persons namely Asharfi Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Shalik Singh @ Shaligram Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Kusheshwar Singh and Ram Pukar Singh were found guilty and accordingly convicted under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Sidhi Singh was separately held guilty and con- victed under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act while accused Mithilesh Singh was found guilty under Sec. 148 along with Sidhi Singh and Daroga Singh besides being found guilty and convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The remaining six accused persons were found guilty under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Those who were found guilty under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code i.e, Sidhi Singh, Mithilesh Singh and Daroga Singh directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life while the remaining six i.e. Asharfi Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Shalik Singh @ Shaligram Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Kusheshwar Singh and Ram Pukar Singh were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for their individual conviction under Sec. 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Sidhi Singh was directed to undergo another period of rigorous imprisonment for seven years for his conviction under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and for one year under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code Accused Mithilesh Singh was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and equal term and nature of punishment and Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Mithilesh Singh and Daroga Singh were directed to un- dergo imprisonment for one year for their conviction under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code. As regards the conviction of the six accused namely Asharfi Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Shalik Singh @ Shaligram Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Kusheshwar Singh and Ram Pukar Singh they had to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for their individual conviction under Sec. 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The four accused persons namely Asharfi Singh, Awadhesh Singh, Ram Pukar Singh and Bhagwat Singh who had been charged together under Sec. 380 of the Indian Penal Code were acquitted of the said charge.
2. The nine accused are the appel- lants in the, three appeals presently being disposed of by this common judgment Asharfi Singh, Shalik Singh @ Shaligram Singh, Ram Pukur Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Awadhesh Singh and Kusheshwar Singh together preferred Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 1993 while Sidhi Singh has sepatately preferred Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 1993. Mithilesh Singh and Daroga Singh have jointly filed the third appeal bearing. Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 1993 to assail the above judgment and order of conviction as against each of them. This may not be out of place
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
