Back
2007 Supreme(Pat) 523
PATNA HIGH COURT
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad and Abhijit Sinha JJ.
Brashamdeo Mehta
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 2001 ;
Decided On : MARCH 14, 2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on solitary evidence and corroboration by medical officers to uphold a conviction under Sec.302/34 and Sec.307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Offence - Sec.302/34, Sec.307/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and interpretation of Sec.302/34 and Sec.307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, highlighting the reliance on the solitary evidence of the informant and the corroboration by medical officers. The court also addressed the issue of enmity and the reliability of the informant's testimony, ultimately upholding the conviction based on the solitary evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was put on trial for offences under Sec.302/34 and Sec.307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case was based on the statement of the informant, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident where his wife was shot dead and he was injured. The court found the appellant guilty based on the informant's testimony and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's case to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, relying on the solitary evidence of the informant and the corroboration by medical officers. The court dismissed the defense's arguments regarding enmity and the reliability of the informant's testimony.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the informant's testimony, the presence of enmity, and the identification of the accused in the dark. The court also addressed the contradiction in the evidence regarding the role of the appellant and the co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that visible capacity of villagers cannot be compared with those accustomed to fluorescent light, and accepted the informant's identification of the accused. The court also emphasized the corroboration of the informant's testimony by medical evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the conviction of the appellant based on the solitary evidence of the informant and the corroboration by medical officers. The sentence of fine was set aside, but the substantive sentence was maintained.
Chandramauli Kr.Prasad and Abhijit Sinha JJ.
1. Brahamdeo Mehta, appellant herein, was put on trial for offence under Section 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code along with accused Mantu Mehta, who in addition was charged for offence under Sec.302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code simplicitor. First Additional Session Judge, Madhepura, by judgment dated 11th of July, 2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 1998 held them guilty of offence under Sec.307/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life on both the counts. A fine of Rs. 25000/ each was also inflicted on both the counts and in default thereof, they were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years. Sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Aggrieved by the same, both preferred separate appeals. Appeal preferred by Mantu Mehta was registered as Cr. Appeal No. 381 of 2001, whereas appeal preferred by Brahamdeo Mehta has given rise to Cr. Appeal No. 339 of 2001.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, Mantu Mehta died and as such, appeal preferred by him has abated.
4. The prosecution started on the basis of a statement given on 23.10.1994 at 10 P.M by P.W. 6 Bhupendra Prasad Mehta at the Primary Health Centre, Puraini before the Sub Inspector of Police of Puraini Out Post. According to the First Information Report, on 23.10.1994 at about 8.30 P.M., while he along with his wife was lying on a cot Mantu Mehta and the appellant herein came armed with pistol and shot at his wife Dropadi Devi who fell down sustaining injury. When he got up, Mantu Mehta fired at him. The bullet piercing his back came out. According to the informant, after causing gun shot injuries, both fled away towards east and his wife succumbed to the injury at the spot.
5. According to the informant, the occurrence had taken place as accused Mantu Mehta is also an accused in another case in which he and his wife are witnesses. Another reason for the crime, according to the First Information Report, is that six days earlier to the date of incident, accused Mantu Mehta had stolen Manejra (wood used for fuel) of one Jageshwar Mehta which led to Panchayati and he suspected that it was the informant and his wife who had disclosed their names in that theft. The Sub Inspector of Police, after recording the statement, forwarded it to the Officer-in-Charge of Chousa Police Station and on that basis, Chousa P.S. case No. 85 dated 24.10.1994 was registered under Section 326, 307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.27 of the Arms Act.
6. After usual investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons and they were ultimately, committed to the Court of Sessions, where they were charged for committing the murder of Dropadi Devi in furtherance of their common intention punishable under Sec.302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for attempting to commit murder of the informant Bhupendra Prasad Mehta in furtherance of their common intention punishable under Sec.307/34 of the Indian Penal code.
7. Appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
8. Prosecution, in support of its case, had altogether examined nine witnesses. P.W. 1 Kasturi Mehta is the brother of the informant, whereas P.W. 2 Kaushalya Devi is his wife and P.W. 3 Haldhar Mehta, their son and all of them have been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined. P.W. 4 Arup Das is a witness to the inquest and has proved his signature on the Inquest Report. P.W. 5 Siya Ram Mehta is another witness to the inquest and has proved the Inquest Report and his signature thereon. P.W. 6 Bhupendra Prasad Mehta is the informant of the case who has lost his wife in the incident and claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 7 Lakshman Prasad Bhagat is the Civil Assistant Surgeon who had conducted the Post Mortem Examination on the dead body of the deceased Dropadi Devi. P.W. 8 Dr. Ganesh Prasad is another Medical Officer, who had exam
