Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
I.A. ANSARI, SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH, JJ.
Manoj Kumar Bharti – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 1993
Decided on: 16-02-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P., Ms. Soni Srivastava, Advocate: Amicus Curiae
Headnote:Criminal Law-Appreciation of evidence-When medical evidence on record contradicts ocular evidence, it is permissible to rely on ocular evidence by ignoring or brushing aside medical evidence provided that ocular evidence is found to be wholly reliable and trustworthy. (Para 43)
Criminal Law-Appreciation of evidence-One infirm witness cannot be treated to have corroborated evidence of another infirm witness-Witnesses of same brand cannot be taken to have corroborated each other-It is not number of witnesses which determines outcome of a trial; rather, it is inherent falsity or truth of evidence given by witness which decides outcome of trial-If each one of a large number of witnesses is found to be wholly unreliable, their evidence cannot become acceptable as true merely because a large number of similar brand of witnesses have corroborated each other. (Para 47)
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder-Conviction-Medical evidence on record does not support prosecution’s eye-witnesses’ alleged account of the occurrence-In light of evidence on record, accused-appellant ought to have been accorded benefit of doubt-Evidence on record was grossly inadequate to hold accused-appellant guilty of offence of murder or having given blow by means of Garasa on head of deceased-Where evidence on record has given rise to two equally reasonable and possible views, it is trite that view that supports case of defence has to be adopted by Court-In light of evidence on record, accused-appellant ought to have been accorded benefit of doubt-Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 24, 25, 26 and 27)
I.A. ANSARI, J.
Under the judgment, dated 03.09.1993, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1993, by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, the appellant, Manoj Kumar Bharti, stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Following his conviction, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, be described as follows:
(i) On 20.08.1998, at about 10.00 AM, when Pankaj Kumar Singh, younger brother of Nitya Nand Singh (PW 9), was having his meals, their mother, Chameli Devi (PW 4), went to fetch water from the Government handpipe, situated in front of the house of accused Mahendra Bharti, where accused Mahendra Bharti was taking his bath. Accused Mahendra Bharti told Chameli Devi (PW 4) that she should take water, when he finished his bath; but Chameli Devi insisted on fetching water. Enraged by the insistence of Chameli Devi that she would take water and the interruption caused by her in accused Mahendra Bharti taking his bath, accused Mahendra Bharti started abusing Chameli Devi and also assaulted her. This apart, accused Mahendra Bharti exhorted the members of his family to bring lathi, whereupon accused persons, namely, Manoj Bharti, Manohar Bharti, Madam Kumari, Manorama Devi and Ram Prasad came to the handpipe. While accused Manoj Bharti was armed with garasa, accused Manohar Bharti was carrying a lathi; whereas the remaining accused were without any arms. Accused Madam Kumari and accused Manorama Devi gave Chameli Devi (PW 4) fist blows and slapped her and, then, dragged her away by catching a flock of her hair. As Chameli Devi (PW 4) raised hulla, Pankaj Kumar Singh and Nitya Nand Singh rushed to the handpipe. However, when they wanted to intervene in order to save their mother, Chameli Devi (PW 4), while accused Manoj Bharti gave a blow with his garasa on the head of Pankaj Kumar Singh, his co-accused, Manohar Bharti, assaulted Pankaj Kumar Singh by a tengari (axe) on the shoulder of Pankaj Kumar Singh. This apart, accused Mahendra Bharti assaulted Pankaj Kumar Singh by means of lathi.
(ii) Coupled with the above, accused Mahendra Bharti also assaulted Nitya Nand Singh, the informant, brother of Pankaj Kumar Singh (since deceased), by means of lathi.
(iii) On being so assaulted as described hereinbefore, Pankaj Kumar Singh fell down and became unconscious.
(iv) On hearing hulla, raised by the victims of assaults, the villagers from the neighbourhood, namely, Dinesh Singh, Nageshwar Singh and Jai Prakash Singh came out. The neighbours intervened and carried injured Pankaj Kumar Singh to Kahalgaon hospital, where he was given initial treatment and the injury, which Pankaj Kumar Singh has sustained on his head, was stitched. Thereafter, the said injured Pankaj Kumar Singh was shifted to, and treated at, Abhinandan Nursing Home, Patna, where he died on 9th day of the occurrence, i.e., on 29.08.1990.
(v) On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 20.08.1990 itself, at 3.00 PM, Nitya Nand Singh (PW 9) lodged a fardbeyan at Kahalgaon Police Station. Based on the said fardbeyan and treating the same as First Information Report, Sanhaula (Sanokhar) Police Station Case No. 69 of 1990 was registered, under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/504 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused persons, namely, Manoj Kumar Bharti, Manohar Bharti, Mahendra Bharti, Ram Prasad Bharti, Manorma Devi and Madam Kumari. Since the said injured died, while remaining under treatment, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added, on 31.08.1990, to the case aforementioned.
3. During investigation, inquest was held on the said dead body, which was also subjected to post mortem examination, and, on completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet, under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/504/302 of the Indian Penal Code, against accused persons, namely, Manoj Kumar Bharti, Manohar Bharti, Mahendra Bharti, Ram Prasad Bharti, Manorma Devi and Madam Kumari.
4. During trial, wh
