Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 1226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANJANA PRAKASH & RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Md. Quaiyum – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 51 of 2013
Decided On : 14-09-2015
For the Appellant :Mr. Bidhanesh Mishra and Mrs. Tanuja Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.N. Prasad, A.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and credible eyewitness testimonies, supported by medical evidence, to establish guilt in a criminal case.
Headnote:
Section 302 - Conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code, Section 302; Arms Act, Section 27
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for shooting two individuals, resulting in the death of one and serious injury to the other. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony and medical evidence to support their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while some witnesses' testimonies were rejected due to inconsistencies, others provided consistent and credible accounts of the events. The medical evidence further supported the prosecution's case, leading the court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and the reliability of the medical evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and credible testimonies of certain witnesses, as well as the supporting medical evidence, to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act was upheld.
ANJANA PRAKASH, J.
1. The sole Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to RI for three years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-V, Purnea in S. Tr. No. 1173 of 2008 arising out of Bhawanipur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2008 by a judgment of conviction dated 01.12.2012.
2. The case of the prosecution according to Rukhsana Khatun the daughter of Md. Rahman is that on 15.05.2008 while her father was sitting on a “Machan” in front of the house and his brother, Kakku was standing on the road suddenly four accused persons came there and surrounded him. The Appellant is said to have fired at the deceased. When his father came to pick up his brother, Kakku Accused Harun is said to have fired at him. His brother and father in a serious condition were taken to the Primary Health Centre at Bhawanipur and thereafter to Purnea. The reason for the occurrence was that in the morning at about 10 A.M. a passerby had been detained by the Appellant and Harun and assaulted at which his father saved him and brought him to his “Machan”. This had enraged the accused persons who had threatened him of dire consequences. In the evening the present occurrence is said to have taken place as a sequel to the occurrence of the morning. This matter was reported at the Primary Health Centre by P.W.6 at 9 P.M. to P.W.16, the Investigating Officer.
3. The prosecution in all has examined sixteen witnesses in support of its case. However, P.W.7, Md. Ansar, P.W.8, Md. Yakub Nadaf, P.W.9, Md. Izhar, P.W.10, Md. Gyas Shah did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. P.W.11, Md. Shamim Alam, P.W.14, Sikandar Alam also did not support the case of the prosecution but were not declared hostile. However, they are on minor points.
4. P.W.1, Noor Mohammad, P.W.2, Md. Yunus, P.W.3, Md. Wasir @ Bouku, P.W.4, Md. Raqib @ Photo, P.W.5, Sanjida Khatoon, P.W.6, Kukhsana Khatun, P.W.12, Wazida Khatun, P.W.13, Md. Rahamullah have been examined as eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.15, Dr. Vir Kunwar Singh held the Postmortem of the deceased. P.W.16, Sunil Kumar is the Investigating Officer.
5. From the evidence of P.W.1, Noor Mohammad, we find that he deposed as eye-witness stating therein that on the date of occurrence he saw the deceased Kakku having been caught by the four accused and being dragged towards the courtyard and thereafter being shot at by Appellant, Md. Quaiyum. He also stated that when the other deceased, Rahman went to pick him up Harun shot at him. He proves the signature on the photo copy of the inquest report which is marked as Exhibit-X for identification. In his cross-examination, he stated that the Informant was his own niece meaning thereby that deceased, Md. Rahman was his brother and deceased, Kakku his nephew. Importantly, his attention was drawn to his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that he was not an eye-witness but a hearsay witness. This is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.16, Sunil Kumar in Paragraph 12 wherein he stated that he had not deposed before him as an eye-witness.
In such circumstances, we have no option but to reject the eye-witness account of P.W.1.
6. P.W.2, Md. Yunus stated that on the morning of the occurrence when the accused persons were coming with toddy on their cycles a passerby dashed with his cycle on account of which he fell down with toddy. The passerby was assaulted by Quaiyum which was prevented by deceased, Rahman. This had enraged Quaiyum who had threatened him of dire consequences. In the evening, when he was returning from the fields he saw the accused persons near the door of Rahman where Kakku was present and is said to have been fired at by Appellant and thereafter the deceased was shot at by Md. Harun. His attention was also drawn to the earlier statement given to P.W.16 in Paragraph 8 that he wa
