2010 Supreme(Pat) 1762

PATNA HIGH COURT
Shyam Kishore Sharma and Gopal Prasad JJ.
The State Of Bihar
Versus
Lathi Singh @ Sujit Singh, Arbind Singh And Manoj Singh
Decided On : AUGUST 05, 2010

The court held that the attention of a witness must be drawn to his former statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code before it can be used for contradiction, and that the omission of a witness to state a fact in his former statement does not necessarily amount to a contradiction.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Death Reference - Appreciation of Evidence - Identification of Accused - Contradiction - Omission - Section 162 CrPC - Section 145 Evidence Act - Delay in lodging FIR - First Information Report - Examination of Witnesses - Section 161 CrPC - Section 172 CrPC - Case Diary - Use of Case Diary as Evidence - Section 154 CrPC - Statement recorded under Section 154 CrPC - Use of Statement recorded under Section 154 CrPC for Contradiction - Section 302/149 IPC - Section 17 CLA - Section 27 Arms Act.

Fact of the Case:

The prosecution case was that 60-70 persons came armed with firearms in a group forming an unlawful assembly and surrounded Paswantola from its north and south forming two groups and the people of the village started fleeing away here and there on seeing the unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons. Further, the case of the informant in the fardbeyan was that the informant saw co-villagers, Brinda Singh, Gajendra Singh, Sudhir Singh firing indiscriminately at Udai Paswan (deceased) informant (PW 11) and Naseeb Paswan (PW 8). Udai Paswan received firearm injury, but, the informant (PW 11) and Naseeb Paswan (PW 8) anyhow managed to escape and conceal themselves in the house of Hardeo Paswan (PW 13). In the meantime, they heard the sound of 15-20 firings and shouts of slogans that "Peoples War Zindabad" and "BHAKAPA Male Murdabad" by the members of unlawful assembly and even shouted that they have punished for casting votes in favour of JD(U) so they flee away. Further, the case of the prosecution in the fardbeyan of the informant that after the activists receded then informant came out of hides, thereafter, Bhim Paswan, PW 10, son of Naga Paswan (deceased) came weeping and disclosed that in the Khalihan of Basant Paswan of the village, his father Naga Paswan has been done to death by Pappu Singh and Vijay Singh by rifle shot and Arvind Singh, (appellant of Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 77 of 2008) son of Kamta Singh, hurled bomb on the person of his father. Further, the case of informant in the fardbeyan is that thereafter he came out to take stock of fact in the village then saw Dilip Kumar, (PW 4) son of Vijay Paswan (deceased) is crying and disclosed that Vijay Paswan has been murdered by Lathi Singh (appellant of Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 79 of 2008) and Neeraj Singh (absconding) by rifle shot injury in the court yard of Rampratap Paswan (PW 60-70 persons) and further, Sanjay Paswan, PW 3, disclosed that Sharawan Paswan has been murdered by Ajay Singh and Mantu Singh (absconding) by rifle. It has, further, been alleged in the first information report that with the help of other co-villagers the members of the Peoples War Group in the unlawful assembly have been identified and it was learnt that the said unlawful assembly contained Amod Singh, Sahdeo Singh, Jogendra Singh, Manoj Singh (appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 77 of 2008) and other which include the names of 36 persons, including the appellants. The allegation that they have been formed unlawful assemble with lethal weapons and entered into the village and murdered the innocent villagers.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had been able to establish the charges against the appellants under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the court also found that the case was not one of the rarest of rare cases for extreme punishment, and therefore, the sentence of death was converted to imprisonment for life.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had been able to establish the charges against the appellants under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the case was one of the rarest of rare cases for extreme punishment?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had been able to establish the charges against the appellants under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code based on the following evidence: a. The testimony of three eyewitnesses who had identified the appellants as members of the unlawful assembly that had resorted to firing, causing the death of four persons. b. The post-mortem reports which confirmed that the four deceased had died due to firearm injuries. c. The inquest reports which corroborated the time and place of the occurrence. 2. The court held that the case was not one of the rarest of rare cases for extreme punishment, considering that the appellants were members of the unlawful assembly resorting to firing, guided by mob mentality, and that there was no evidence to suggest that it was one of the rare of rarest case for extreme punishment.

Final Decision: The Criminal Appeals were dismissed with the modification that the sentence of death was converted to imprisonment for life against the appellants. The Death Reference was answered in the negative.