Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 927
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.
Krishna Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No 27 of 1992
Decided On : 11.11.2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Conviction – In order to establish prosecution case, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses – As evident from evidence of wife of appellant, certain lands were got transferred from appellant to appellant's wife which appellant's wife then gifted to her younger brother because she was staying with them – All this had enraged appellant and thereafter, he apparently decided to kill his father-in-law – All this had enraged appellant and thereafter, he apparently decided to kill his father-in-law – This is unshaken testimony of wife of appellant – Evidences of three witnesses are sufficient to uphold conviction of appellant both on principles of last seen because time between deceased was last seen in company of appellants and discovery of dead body in house of appellant was very short – Appellant had been seen running out from house – This clearly is sufficient unbroken chain of events – As dead body, immediately killed, was found in house of appellant and appellant was seen running away from house, Section 106 of Evidence Act can rightly be invoked – It was for appellant to explain how his father-in-law met his death with such brutal injuries in appellant's house where appellant and his aunt alone lived – There is no explanation – No evidence has been brought on record to explain these circumstances by defence – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7 to 12)
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.1992 and 05.03.1992 as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge IV, Saran at Chapra by which the appellant has been held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State and perused the records. We do not find any justification in interfering with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. The reasons are thus:
3. The appellant was married to Vejainti Devi (PW 4), the daughter of the deceased Rama Singh @ Ramjit Singh. The prosecution case is based upon the Fardbayan of one Sumitra Devi (PW 8) who happens to be the sister of the deceased. The Fardbayan is recorded at about 1 pm on 25.09.1989, inter alia, alleging that the informant’s brother Rama Singh @ Ramjit Singh, the deceased had come to the informant’s village to return her ox. He had stayed there at night. In the morning, he told the informant that he would come back and take lunch and then leave and went out. Soon thereafter, one Behari Singh (PW 10) came running and informed the informant that her brother had been taken away by the appellant and his aunt and had been killed. She went to the house of the appellant which is in the same village in the neighborhood and found her brother having been mercilessly beaten lying dead in the house and the appellant and his aunt missing.
4. Upon this Fardbayan, a formal first information report (FIR) was registered. Inquest report was prepared noting severe injuries on the head and neck and the recovery of the body from the house of the appellant. Post mortem was conducted confirming a broken arm, a ruptured artery in the neck, severe blows to the skull fracturing the skull at several places. Cause of death was due to excessive bleeding due to haemorrhage as a consequence of those injuries.
5. Upon investigation, chargesheet was filed only against the appellant. Cognizance having been taken, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. Appellant, having pleaded not guilty, was tried and convicted.
6. On behalf of appellant, it is submitted that the conviction of the appellant is based solely upon the theory of last seen and there is no direct evidence inculpating the appellant. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission.
7. In order to establish the prosecution case, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses but it would not be necessary for us to refer to each one of them. Having gone through the entire evidence, we have found that there are three material prosecution witnesses only being PWs 1, 4 and 10. The rest are corroborative witnesses to the main facts in issue.
8. It appears that the deceased having left the house of his sister, the informant, he went alongwith Bihari Singh (PW 10) to the house of Masterji Kapildeo Singh (PW 1) to express condolence in respect of death of Masterji’s son who had died about two days back. PW 1 Masterji corroborated this fact and then his (PW 1) evidence is that the appellant and his aunt came to the house and persuaded the deceased to go to the appellant’s house for some important discussion. Masterji then, soon thereafter, heard that deceased Rama Singh had been killed. The testimony remains unshaken. This testimony clearly establishes that within a very short time of the deceased being taken by the appellant from the house of Masterji, the deceased died in the house of the appellant.
9. The next witness would be Bihari Singh (PW 10). He is the person who is mentioned in the Fardbayan as having come and informed the informant that the appellant and his aunt had killed Rama Singh, the deceased in their house. His statement remains unimpeached. He clearly states that he was called by the informant and at her request, he accompanied the deceased to purchase a buff
