Back
2016 Supreme(Pat) 1064
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANJANA PRAKASH, RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Nawal Singh S/o Late Sheoram Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeals (DB) No.530, 632 of 2011
Decided on : 25-05-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv., Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh,
Mr Uma Kumari
For the Informant : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Jitendra Kumar
For the State : Mr. A.K. Sinha, A.P.P., Mr. S.C. Mishra, A.P.P.
Benefit of doubt should be given to the accused when there are inconsistencies in the evidence and lack of physical evidence supporting the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
302 I.P.C. - Conviction under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. - Acts and sections referenced: section 302 I.P.C., section 34 I.P.C., section 27 of the Arms Act, section 341 I.P.C. - The court discussed the evidences of the 12 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, inconsistencies in the evidence against the appellants, and the lack of marks of dragging or trail of blood between the first and second place of occurrence. The court acquitted the appellants of the charges due to benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellants under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. for the murder of the deceased, based on the prosecution's evidence of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in the evidence against the appellants and lack of marks of dragging or trail of blood between the first and second place of occurrence, leading to the acquittal of the appellants for giving them the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the veracity of the prosecution's evidence, the presence of inconsistencies in the witness testimonies, and the lack of physical evidence supporting the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the inconsistencies in the evidence against the appellants and the lack of physical evidence, leading to the benefit of doubt being given to the appellants and their subsequent acquittal.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of the charges and they were discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
ANJANA PRAKASH, J.
Heard learned counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the Informant.
2. All the above named Appellants have been convicted under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. Further Appellant Arvind Singh has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act and further all the above Appellants have been convicted one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under section 341 I.P.C., in default of which, 6 months further Rigorous Imprisonment each of the Appellants.
3. The case of the prosecution, according to Sabhapati Singh (P.W.5) is that on 05.06.2007 Pappu Singh, nephew of the Informant, had gone to the shop of Tuntun Singh to buy a cigarette at about 08.00 P.M. just then the present Appellants and one Laddu Singh surrounded him and thereafter, Appellant Arvind Singh fired at his neck on account of which he fell down. The Appellant Navlesh Singh said that he is still alive on which Appellants Bisheshwar Singh and Nawal Singh dragged the deceased towards their house and accused Laddu Singh fired at the deceased on his chest on account of which he died. Chandramauli Sharma (P.W.2), Dinesh Singh (P.W.8), Ramashray Singh (P.W.1), Narayan Singh (not examined) and Ramcharitra Singh (not examined) also saw the occurrence. He alleged that his nephew Pappu Singh had been killed on account of previous dispute. This information was given at the village of the occurrence.
4. The prosecution examined altogether 12 witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the initial version given by P.W.8 Dinesh Singh has been suppressed by the prosecution, thus, leaving a reasonable doubt upon the veracity of the belated statement. Moreover, there is no repetition of firing on the Appellant Arvind Singh, who purportedly came with sole intention of killing the deceased and hence, he can be punished only under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Further, submission is that the place of occurrence has not been proved, inasmuch as there is no trail of blood or dragging found from the first place to the second place of occurrence.
6. On the contrary, the counsel for the Informant submits that the Police has well proved his case by consistent evidence, both ocular and objective. Therefore, the conviction of the Appellants should be maintained. Further submission is that all the Appellants had the common intention of committing death of the deceased for which they had surrounded, shot, dragged and shot him again. Only six months back, the deceased had an altercation with Laddu Singh, a close family member of the present Appellants and therefore, there is no scope of acquittal of any of the Appellants.
7. To appreciate the aforesaid arguments, we would like to discuss the evidences of the 12 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution.
8. P.W.1 Ramashray Singh, who is the uncle of the deceased, stated that on 05.06.2007 at about 8.00 P.M., he was standing at the Gumti of Tuntun Singh, when he saw the Appellants and accused Laddu Singh surrounding the deceased Pappu Singh and Appellant Arvind Singh fired at him on the neck. Thereafter, Appellant Navlesh Singh declared that the deceased was still alive and started to drag him towards his house along with Appellant Bisheshwar Singh. They brought the dead body to the field of Sabhapati Singh, where the accused Laddu Singh fired once again, which hit him on the chest.
In cross-examination, he explained that the deceased was his own nephew. He further submitted that deceased Pappu Singh and the accused had altercation and minor assault over irrigation and it is on account of this reason that there was tension between them. He clarified that as soon as the accused came, they fired and also threatened him when he started
