Back
2012 Supreme(Pat) 1261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA AND AMARESH KUMAR LAL, JJ.
Shiv Prasad Singh & ors. (in Cr. App. 42 of 2005), Mangroo Singh (in Cr. App. 71 of 2005) - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Versus
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.42 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 71 of 2005
Decided on: 21.9.2012
For the Appellants:Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kr. Pandey, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP.
The prosecution must prove the case beyond a shadow of all reasonable doubts, and the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302/149 of the IPC, Section 307 of the IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act - [IPC Section 302/149, IPC Section 307, Arms Act Section 27]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an altercation over property leading to a violent confrontation resulting in the death of an individual and injuries to others. The trial court convicted the accused based on the prosecution and defense versions.
Finding of the Court:
The court re-evaluated the evidence and found contradictions and vital lacunas in the prosecution's version, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted from the charges.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of witnesses, contradictions in the evidence, and the delay in transmitting the FIR to the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that if a doubt is created, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused, and the prosecution must prove the case beyond a shadow of all reasonable doubts.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted from the charges. The appellants on bail were discharged from their respective bail bonds, and the appellant in custody was directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
Per: SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA, J.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 42 of 2005 on behalf of Shiv Prasad Singh, Umesh Singh, Kapil Singh and Akhilesh Singh @ Akhileshwar Singh and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 71 of 2005 on behalf of Mangroo Singh have been taken up together because both the appeals have arisen out of one judgment and order of conviction dated 03.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 07.12.2004 passed by Shri Pradeep Nath Tiwari, the learned P.O. Additional Court (F.T.C.) No. 1, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sessions Trial No. 18/104 of 1985/2001, whereby all the accused namely, Mangroo Singh, Kapil Singh, Akhileshwar Singh, Shiv Prasad Singh, Umesh Singh have been sentenced to undergo RI for life under Section 302/ 149 of the IPC and also the accused Akhileshwar Singh sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 307 of the IPC and further the accused Akhileshwar Singh and Mangroo Singh were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The sentences awarded against the accused Akhileshwar Singh and Mangroo Singh were directed to run concurrently.
2. The fardbeyan recorded by officer-in-charge of Dinara police station on 06.12.1981 at 09.30 p.m. of P.W.4 Bihari Singh alleged that on the same day in the afternoon the informant and his brother co-accused Shiv Prasad Singh went to see their field and asked for sharing the property namely buffalo but it was declined by Shiv Prasad Singh who claimed that the buffalo was the gift to him by his in-laws. This caused altercation whereupon accused Shiv Prasad Singh threatened him to dire consequences. In the same evening P.W. 4 and his brother Ramadhar Singh P.W. 2 were in Khalihan then the Mangroo Singh with his licensed gun, Kapil Singh with Bhala, Akhileshwar Singh with country-made gun, Shiv Prasad Singh with Bhala and Umesh Singh with Garasa came and the informant escaped and raised hulla upon which Kamta Singh (the deceased), Jag Dayal Singh P.W. 1, Bishwanath Singh P.W. 3, Ramadhar Singh P.W. 2 and others came. Mangroo Singh fired from his rifle which caused injury in the stomach of Kamta Singh (the deceased) who fell down. Second firing by Akhileshwar Singh caused injury in the right arm of Jagdayal Singh P.W. 1. After committing the occurrence, the accused persons escaped to the northern side. Kamta Singh died in the way while he was on way for Dinara Hospital for treatment.
3. The fardbeyan resulted into formal FIR of Dinara P.S. Case No. 220 of 1981 under Sections 148, 149, 307, 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The important aspect of the fardbeyan is that it was recorded at 9.30 p.m. on 06.12.1981 but the record shows that it has been received in the court on 22.12.1981 i.e. after more than two weeks of the occurrence. After cognizance being taken, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where charge under Section 302/149 of the IPC was explained to all the accused. Charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 307 of the IPC was explained to Akhileshwar Singh, Charge under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was explained to Mangroo Singh. They pleaded their innocence then the trial proceeded.
4. The defence of the accused was of false implication on account of enmity. Their further defence was that Mangroo Singh was of such an advanced age that it was not possible for him to commit such an offence. It has been submitted that Mangroo Singh has crossed in his late eighties and he was not strong enough to inflict such injuries. A Barat party had come to the village and due to negligent firing of one member of Barat party the injuries were caused which led to death and injury.
5. The trial court after considering the prosecution and defence version opined that the charges were proved so order of conviction was passed.
6. This Court is required to reappraise the evidence and to see as to whether the prosecution was able to prove the charge against the appellant beyond shadow
