Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.
Shambhu Nath Singh - Appellant
With
Raj Kumar Mishra - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.302 of 1991 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 337 of 1991
Decided On: 02-09-2014
For the Appellant: Mr. Amish Kumar, Amicus Curiae.
For the Informant: Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the State: Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P.
The consistent and unshaken testimony of the prosecution witnesses, along with corroborative evidence, is crucial in establishing a prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Offences - Section-302/34, Section-27 of the Arms Act, Section-3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section-302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section-27 of the Arms Act, and Section-3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. The prosecution's case was based on the fardbeyan of the deceased's nephew, disclosing the sequence of events leading to the deceased's injuries and subsequent death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the consistent and unshaken testimony of the prosecution witnesses, along with the corroborative evidence, to establish the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction of the appellants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the delay in informing the police, and the potential bias of the witnesses due to their disputes with the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The consistent and unshaken testimony of the prosecution witnesses, along with the corroborative evidence, was crucial in establishing the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were required to surrender before the Court below to serve out their sentences. Their bail bonds were cancelled, and the records were to be sent to the trial Court for necessary action immediately.
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)
These two appeals have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction dated 18.06.1991 and that of sentence dated 19.06.1991 passed by the learned 2ndAdditional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.363 of 1990, whereby the appellants have been found guilty for the offences punishable under Section-302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant-Shambhunath Singh has been further found guilty under Section-27 of the Arms Act and appellant- Raj Kumar Mishra has been found guilty under Section-3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. However, no separate sentence has been passed under Section-27 of the Arms Act or under Section-3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act.
2. As noted above in earlier order, these appeals have been on our list for hearing for sometime, though the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the informant have been appearing, no one appeared for the appellants who in the past also have been changing Lawyers at different stages. We had, accordingly, appointed Mr. Amish Kumar a Lawyer of this Court to assist us as Amicus curiae.
3. We have heard the appeal at length and perused the records. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of one Nawal Kishore Chaudhary (P.W.7) who is the nephew of the deceased, Jugeshwar Chaudhary. It was recorded by Raj Kishore Singh (P.W.9), Officer-in-Charge of Bidupur Police Station at 7 am on 19.10.1989 at village Bala Tand, Police Station Bidupur, District Vaishali at Hajipur, which is 8 Kms. from the Bidupur Police Station. The fardbeyan states that at about 4 pm on 18.10.1989, the uncle of the informant, the deceased Jugeshwar Chaudhary, as usual, went to drink toddy at the place of Upendra Paswan (P.W.4). He sits besides palm tree from which he extracts and sells toddy. After sometime, the informant heard the sound of bomb blast and a gun shot from the direction where his uncle had gone. Out of curiosity he ran. When he reached the house of Jugul Singh, he found that his uncle was lying on a cot and was profusely bleeding from all over his body. When he asked his uncle, what happened, his uncle, in presence of several other people, disclosed that while he was having toddy at the place of Upendra Paswan (P.W.4), three persons, namely, Raj Kumar Mishra, Shambhunath Singh and Sarvesh Kumar Singh came. Raj Kumar Mishra threw a bomb which exploded and he fell to the ground grievously injured. Shambhunath Singh then put a pistol on his chest and fired. Sarvesh Kumar Singh then stabbed him on his head. Neighbouring people who reached immediately decided to carry his uncle to Hajipur for treatment but soon thereafter on way itself he died. He states that his uncle was unmarried and issueless and the reason for this gruesome act was that there had been long standing dispute between Shambhunath Singh and Jugul Kishore Singh. There were cases and counter cases. The deceased had always sided with the said Jugul Kishore Singh. As a result of that this occurrence took place. On basis of this fardbeyan, police case was registered. Police took up investigation and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against Raj Kumar Mishra and Shambhunath Singh because in the meantime Sarvesh Kumar Singh had died. Cognizance having been taken and the case being committed to the Court of Sessions charges were framed. Sanction had been received for prosecution under Explosive Substance Act as well. Appellants pleaded not guilty and were tried and convicted. Hence, these two appeals.
4. In order to establish its case the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses out of which P.W.1-Bhagaya Narain Chaudhary and P.W.11-Ramchandra Prasad Verma are formal witnesses. P.W.1-Bhagaya Narain Chaudhary is a witness to the inquest. He knows nothing about the occurrence. P.W.11-Ramchandra Prasad Verma is a Clerk in the Coll
