Back
2013 Supreme(Pat) 88
PATNA HIGH COURT
SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA AND ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, JJ.
Suchit Singh & Anr.
With
Prabhat Kumar Singh - Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent (in both cases)
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 270 of 1990 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 368 of 1990
Decided on: January 22, 2013
Advocate Appeared
Kanhaiya Prasad Singh. Sr, Adv., Surendra Kumar Singh, Ganesh Prasad Singh and Anirudh Kumar Singh for the appellant.
D.K. Sinha, APP and Ajay Mishra, APP. for the State
Ramchandra Singh and Shankar Kumar, for the Informant.
Recognition of inherent defects in the trial court's judgment and the need for re-evaluation of the case.
Headnote:
Judgment - Offence - Sections 148, 302, 147, 302/149, 325 of the IPC - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the offenses punishable under Sections 148, 302, 147, 302/149, and 325 of the IPC. The judgment highlighted deficiencies in the trial court's consideration of evidence and the need for re-appreciation of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and others were found guilty for various offenses including murder and assault based on an incident involving a land dispute. The judgment highlighted deficiencies in the trial court's consideration of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found glaring defects in the trial court's judgment, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence. The matter was remanded to the trial court for re-evaluation and a fresh judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the deficiencies in the trial court's consideration of evidence and the need for re-appreciation of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi was the recognition of inherent defects in the trial court's judgment, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence and the remand of the matter for re-evaluation.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for re-evaluation and a fresh judgment.
Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.
1. Appellant Prabhat Kumar Singh who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 148 and 302. IPC and been directed to undergo R.I. for two years as well as. R.I. for life respectively appellants Bharat Singh, Suchit Singh, Dilip Kumar Singh (since deceased) and Bachu Singh (since deceased) have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 147, 302/149 of the IPC and further been directed to undergo R.I. for one year. R.I. for life respectively appellant Bharat Singh, Dilip Kumar Singh (since deceased), Suchit Singh, Prabhat Kumar Singh, Bachu Singh (since deceased) have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for two years vide judgment dated 13.07.1990 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions judge Bhojpur at Arrah 'in Sessions Trial No. 299/1988 have preferred instant appeals. Accordingly they have been heard together and the appeals are being disposed off by common judgment.
2. PW-2 Shakaldeep Singh gave his fardbeyan (Exhibit-5) on 27.04.1987, 05.30 p.m. while he was admitted at State Dispensary, Bihea before S.I. Bihea alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 04:00 p.m. while his elder brother Pradeep Singh (deceased) was returning from his orchard lying East to his house and as soon as reached near ditch lying behind his house, all on a sudden Bharat Singh, Suchit Singh, Prabhat Kumar Singh, Dilip Kumar Singh, Bachu Singh hedged him. He rushed to that place. Meanwhile they all have assaulted Pradeep Singh who felled down and then he too was assaulted by them. On his cry Bhuneshwar Singh (not examined), Ram Pravesh Singh (not examined), Mritunjay Singh (not examined). Ram Kumar Singh (not examined) along with others came. Then thereafter, Prabhat Kumar Singh hurled bomb over his brother causing injury upon him and during said course, he (Prabhat Kumar Singh) also sustained injury. Thereafter he along with his brother were lifted to Bihea hospital and from there his brother has been referred to Arrah Sadar Hospital. Land dispute has been shown to be motive for commission of occurrence.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Bihea P.S. Case No. 64 of 1987, was registered followed with investigation during course of which, as is evident Pradeep Singh succumb to his injury and on account thereof, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants named above for the offences including that of murder and on account thereof they were put un trial which ultimately culminated in their conviction which happens to be the subject matter of these appeals.
4. The defence as is evident from the mode of cross-examination as well as from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial of occurrence as well as of innocence. There has also been plea of alibi on behalf of appellants Suchit Singh. However, the appellants examined four witnesses and exhibited series of documents not only confining the plea of alibi relating to appellant Suchit Singh rather counter version had also been brought up on record.
5. Because of the fact that certain glaring defect has been pointed out as well as perceived by us while going through the judgment impugned therefore the elaborate argument raised on behalf of rival parties are forbidden. From the L.C. record. it is evident that altogether nine PWs have been examined who are Durgawati Devi, Shakaldeep Singh, Ram Bahadur Singh, Birendra Singh, Dr. G.P. Shrivastawa. Dr. S.P. Shrivastawa. Basudeo Prasad Singh. Dr. Gorakh Nath Prasad. Murat Ram but from the L.C. record it is evident that they have not been shown in seriatim manner and it appears that on account thereof certain deficiencies cropped up. The learned lower Court in stead of taking into account stock of nine witnesses had considered presence of only eight witnesses as is evident from para-11 of the judgment. Durgawati Devi was examined on 24.01.1989. Shakaldeep Singh was examine
