Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 1206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
GOPAL PRASAD and DHARNIDHAR JHA, JJ.
Bishwanath Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.108, 120, 171 of 1992
Decided on : 26-8-2015
For the Appellant :Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate., Mr. Avinash Sekhar, Advocate., Ms. Tulika Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
The prosecution must establish the essential elements of the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place, manner, and genesis of the occurrence, and the evidence must be consistent with medical evidence.
Headnote:
Conviction - Offence under Sections 302/34 - Indian Penal Code - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants were involved in a scuffle resulting in the death of the victim. The witnesses and others took the victim to a village doctor for treatment, and then to a hospital where the victim died.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the witnesses was inconsistent and fluctuating, creating doubts about their reliability as eyewitnesses. The prosecution failed to establish the place, manner, and genesis of the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses, lack of corroboration with medical evidence, and failure to establish the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the case, including the place, manner, and genesis of the occurrence, and the evidence of the witnesses was not consistent with the medical evidence.
Final Decision: The accused persons were acquitted, and the judgment and order of conviction were set aside. The appellants were discharged from their liabilities of bail.
GOPAL PRASAD, J.
Three appeals having been heard together are being disposed of by this common judgment as all three appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 22nd April, 1992, passed by the 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 1981, by which the appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case as alleged in the First Information Report by the informant Jugal Singh (P.W.5) is that at about 10.00 A.M. while he was cutting grass in his field then he heard sound of cry of his brother Birju (deceased). He went to his Masuri field then saw appellants, Suresh, Bishwanath Singh, Prithbi Singh and Sidhnath Singh scuffling with his brother Birju. He caught the hand of Sidhnath Singh and asked him as to why they were doing so, then his brother disclosed that they were uprooting Masuri and on protest they were assaulting and scuffling on the said utterance Prithbi Singh commanded to assault and gave a lathi blow on the right hand of the informant and in the meantime Sidhnath got his hand freed from the informant and started assaulting the informant causing injury on the head and body of the informant. The brother of the informant came to the rescue of the informant and started making hullah on which Suresh Singh gave dagger blow on Birju on his back and waist due to which the brother of the informant fell down and started rolling in pain. On hullah one Balkhira (not examined) as well as other co-villagers Rambarosa, Ramadhar (P.W.2), Ram Pravesh (P.W.3) Gajadhar (P.W.1) and others came and saw the accused persons fleeing away from the place of occurrence. It is further alleged that after the occurrence accused persons fled away. Further case is that the witnesses and others took the victim to co-villager Lal Babu for his treatment and the said Lalbabu had given first aid of. Thereafter, Birju, (deceased), brother of the informant was taken to Sadar Hospital, Arrah and while on way at Village-Belaur, Birju, the brother
of the informant died and then they took the dead body to the hospital.
3. The statement of the informant, P.W.5, Jugal Singh was recorded in the hospital at about 5.30 P.M. on 31.01.1980 by the Officer-in-Charge of Nagar Thana Arrah by the Birendra Prasad, S.I. and formal F.I.R. was drawn up and investigation was proceeded with. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After framing of the charge against four accused persons for offence under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, trial had proceeded.
4. During trial eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution as P.W. 1 Gajadhar Yadav, P.W.2 Rambharosh Yadav, P.W.3 Ramadhar Yadav, P.W.4 Dineshwar Yadav claimed to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.5 Jugal Singh is the informant, P.W.6 Baban Yadav who tendered by the prosecution, P.W. 7 Dr. Sureshwar Narain Singh who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and P.W.8 is Ramesh Kumar Singh, Police Officer who had formally proved the Fardbeyan and F.I.R. He had partly Investigated the case and had stated that he got of investigation of the case on 08.03.1980 and submitted charge sheet and formally proved paragraph 1 to 34 of the case diary and writing of Bhuneshwar Prasad the first I.O. who conducted major part of the investigation, though, this witness P.W. 8 has only recorded statement of Balkhira Yadav (not examined), Ramadhar Yadav P.W.3 and Lalbabu (not examined).
5. The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence of witnesses held that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 supported the prosecution case and the ocular evidence of informant, P.W.5 and the injury on deceased was corroborated by the evidence of the doctor who had found corresponding injury. Hence convicted the appellants and sentenced as mentioned above.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 are not
