Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH, PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL, JJ.
Raghunath Thakur S/o Late Raj Mohan Thakur - Appellants
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.134 of 2012
Decided On : 28-07-2017
For the Appellants :Mr. B. P. Pandey, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible and consistent evidence, including witness testimonies, medical evidence, and documentary evidence, to substantiate the prosecution's case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302 - 302/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of the deceased. The case revolved around the occurrence of the murder and the prosecution's evidence against the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution successfully substantiated the charge against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The testimonies of the witnesses, medical evidence, and documentary evidence were considered credible and reliable. The court upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of the prosecution's witnesses, corroboration of ocular evidence with medical evidence, and the presence of previous animosity as the motive for the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and trustworthy testimonies of the witnesses, the corroboration of ocular evidence with medical evidence, and the substantiation of the motive for the murder through documentary evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court were upheld.
PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned APP for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 351 of 2011 arising out of Daudpur P.S. Case No. 64 of 2010, whereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also slapping him with fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that Daudpur P.S. Case No. 64 of 2010 was instituted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, namely, Raghunath Thakur and one unknown accused on the basis of written report of the informant Santosh Barnwal, son of Sri Brij Mohan Prasad Barnwal, with the allegation in succinct that, his brother, namely, Shailendar Kumar Barnwal used to collect R.D. amount daily in the area. On 09.07.2010 in the evening, he had gone for the said collection in village Jaitpur Tiwari Tola. While the informant was proceeding via Tiwari Tola on an invitation, he abruptly heard alarm of ‘save-save’ in the said area. He witnessed two persons, namely, Raghunath Thakur and one unknown miscreant assaulting his brother by means of Bhujali. He rushed to his brother, but his brother had died sustaining injury by that time. After committing murder, the accused persons left the scene. The bone of contention is previous animosity.
4. The aforesaid case was investigated by the Police. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded further statement of the informant, statement of the witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for autopsy and filed the chargesheet against the appellant under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. On the basis of the chargesheet and the case diary, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for its trial. Charge against the appellant was framed under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the course of trial, in ocular evidence, the prosecution has been able to adduce altogether nine prosecution witnesses namely, Omprakash Barnwal (PW-1), Sunil Kumar Barnwal (PW-2), Ramnath Bhartiya (PW-3), Dr. Shambhunath Singh (PW-4), Santosh Barnwal (PW-5), Bikram Prasad (PW-6), Jay Prakash (PW-7), Md. Hussnain Khan (PW-8) and Arvind Kr. Pandey (PW-9). Out of the aforesaid witnesses, Ramnath Bhartiya (PW-3) and Bikram Prasad (PW-6) turned hostile while Arvind Kr. Pandey (PW-9) happens to be formal witness. In documentary evidence, the prosecution has filed and exhibited several documents.
7. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The case of the defence is complete denial of the occurrence claiming to have been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not adduced either any ocular or documentary evidence in buttress of his case.
8. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the learned lower court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also slapped him with fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year.
9. The point for consideration in this case is, as to whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts or not.
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses in this case and the statement of the aforesaid witnesses are full of contradiction, so t
