Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 1949
2012 (2) East Cr C 726 (Pat)
PATNA HIGH COURT
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH AND ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, JJ.
Rahimuddin Shah - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 444 of 1989 with Cr. A. (DB) No. 86 of 1990.
Decided On : September 14.2011
A.K. Mallick and Kaushal Kumar, for the appellant.
S.C. Mishra, APP and Miss. Shashibala Verma, for the respondent.
The importance of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) as conveying the earliest information regarding the occurrence and the consequences of a tainted investigation.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Sections 148, 302/149, 380/149 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case based on the fardbeyan of the informant, the examination of witnesses, the conduct of the Investigating Officer, and the inconsistencies in the evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants, leading to the setting aside of the order of conviction and sentence and discharging the appellants from their liabilities of bail bonds.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in a murder case. The prosecution's case was based on the fardbeyan of the informant, alleging that the accused persons killed the informant's son and committed theft in the house due to previous enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants.
Issues: Inconsistencies in the evidence, conduct of the Investigating Officer, non-examination of witnesses, and the timing of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) were the key issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's case was tainted due to deliberate suppression of the F.I.R. and inconsistencies in the evidence, leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to rely upon such a tainted investigation. The court also noted that the subsequent statement treated as F.I.R. would be hit by Section 162 of the Cr. P.C.
Final Decision: The order of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the appellants were discharged from their liabilities of bail bonds.
Ashwani Kumar Singh. J. - The two appellants through the aforesaid two appeals have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.7.1989 passed in Sessions Trial No. 260/1987 by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge. Purnea whereby they have been held guilty under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302/149. I.P.C. No separate sentence has been awarded to them under Section 148 uf the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is based upon fardbeyan of the informant Sridhar Jha which was recorded at 7.30 a.m. on 9.4.1984 by Sri R.C. Singh. Sub-Inspector of Police of K. Nagar police station at Sausa. The informant has alleged that few days back his boring pipe had been extracted and taken away by some unknown person. On inquiry, he came to know that one Kanka Fakir a resident of village Rahuwa had stolen the boring pipe. The informant and his family members had taken Kanka Fakir to task and had asked him to return the stolen boring pipe, as a result of which he got annoyed and had threatened to kill the informant. Due to aforesaid reason, in the night intervening between 8.4.1984 and 9.4.1984 at about 12.00 a.m. accused Abbas Shah, Kanka Fakir. Hakma Fakir, younger brother of Hakma Fakir (Rahimuddin Shah) and three other unknown persons being variously armed with axe, farsa, sword and revolver came at the door of the informant and surrounded the "chowki' on which, two sons of the informant, namely, Shailendra Kumar Jha and Pushpendra Kumar Madhav were sleeping. They identified Shailendra Kumar Jha in torch-light after removing the "chadar" (Sheet of Cloth) from his face. Thereafter, accused Hakma Fakir assaulted by axe causing injury near eye of Shailendra Kumar Jha and accused Kanka Fakir fired from country-made revolver hitting in the chest of Shailendra Kumar Jha, ShaiIendra Kumar Jha was seriously injured and died instantaneously.
3. The informant has further alleged in his fardbeyan that Shailendra Kumar Jha was keeping Rs. 300/- in cash, which the accused persons threw on the “chowki” The informant has also alleged that the accused persons assaulted his another son namely. Pushpendra Kumar Madhav by handle of 'axe'. An alarm was raised and large number of villagers rushed towards the house of the informant. The accused persons took to their heels towards West. The informant found some of the ornaments and other house-hold articles missing from the house which he alleged that the accused persons had taken away. The informant, thus, claimed that due to pervious, enmity as stated above, the accused persons killed one of his son and committed theft in the house.
4. The fardbeyan with inquest report and seizure list was handed over by S.I.. RC. Singh of K. Nagar police station to S.I.. Indrajit Singh, who was In-charge of Maranga O.P. and had reached subsequently at the place of occurrence. It appears from the forwarding note of Indrajit Singh. Sub-Inspector of Police and Incharge of Maranga O.P. which is noted beneath the fardbeyan that the said recorded statement was being forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of K.Nagar police station for institution of F.I.R under Section 302/380. IPC of which he had himself taken up the investigation. On receipt of the aforesaid fardbeyan, a formal F.I.R was drawn on 9.4.1984 being K. Nagar P.S. Case No. 75 of 1984, under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code naming Abbas Shah. Kanka Fakir, Hakma Fakir, younger brother of Hakma Fakir and three others as accused and investigation was taken up. On conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the accused persons. The co-accused Kanka Fakir and Hakma Fakir absconded. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and after supplying the police papers, since the offence alleged was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case of the appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions.
