SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Pat) 287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAKESH KUMAR, ARVIND SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Ajay Paswan S/O Bangali Paswan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 869 & 566 of 2012
Decided On : 11-01-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Kumar Sunil, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad (A.P.P.)
For the Informant :Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Sourendra Pandey, Advocate

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONVICTION - MURDER - SECTION 302/34, 201, 364/34, 394/34 AND 411 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD DOES NOT SUGGEST INVOLVEMENT OF EITHER OF THE APPELLANTS. HENCE, THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IS SET ASIDE AND BOTH APPEALS ARE ALLOWED.

Fact of the Case:

Sanjay Singh, son of Kamla Singh, went to Kochas Bazar to hire his tractor to three unknown persons. He informed his father about the same over the phone and also informed him that he would be loading potatoes from Pusauli Cold Storage. However, Sanjay Singh did not return home and his dead body was found in a paddy field. The police investigated the case and arrested Ajay Paswan and Dinesh Kumar Pal. They were charged with murder, robbery, and theft. The trial court convicted and sentenced both the appellants.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence on record does not suggest involvement of either of the appellants. The court noted that the witnesses who claimed to have seen Ajay Paswan with Sanjay Singh on the day of the incident, had not mentioned anything about it to the police or the informant for about two months. The court also noted that the investigating officer had not taken any steps to arrest Haider Ali, who had allegedly sold the stolen mobile phone to Dinesh Kumar Pal. The court further noted that the investigating officer had not conducted any investigation against other accused persons named by the informant in his application to the Superintendent of Police.

Issues: 1. Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the investigating officer conducted a fair and impartial investigation?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence on record does not suggest involvement of either of the appellants. The court noted that the witnesses who claimed to have seen Ajay Paswan with Sanjay Singh on the day of the incident, had not mentioned anything about it to the police or the informant for about two months. The court also noted that the investigating officer had not taken any steps to arrest Haider Ali, who had allegedly sold the stolen mobile phone to Dinesh Kumar Pal. The court further noted that the investigating officer had not conducted any investigation against other accused persons named by the informant in his application to the Superintendent of Police.

Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and allowed both appeals. The court also directed the Director General of Police, Bihar to take appropriate departmental action against the investigating officer of the case.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, J.

Since in aforesaid two appeals, both the appellants were convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 277/33 of 2011 (arising out of Kudra P.S. Case No. 172 of 2010), both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Both the appellants were put on trial on the charge of committing offence under Sections 302/34, 201, 364/34, 394/34 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and both the appellants were finally held guilty and convicted under Sections 364/34, 394/34, 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, the appellant Dinesh Kumar Pal (in Cr. Appeal DB No. 566 of 2012) was further convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code by judgment of conviction dated 04-06-2012 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhabhua, Kaimur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Judge’). Both appellants were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life separately for offence under Sections 302/34, 394/34, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of the appellants were imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) and in default, they were directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, both were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years alongwith fine of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each and in default, they have been directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant Dinesh Kumar Pal in Cr. Appeal DB No. 566 of 2012 has also been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Short fact of the case is that on 16-10-2010 at 16.45 hours (4:45 PM) fardbeyan of one Kamla Singh (P.W.8) was recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police Bashant Baitha (P.W. 14), officer incharge of Kudra Police Station. The fardbeyan was recorded in Karma Badhar in the paddy field of one Hyder Ansari. In the fardbeyan, the informant disclosed that on 14-10-2010, his son Sanjay Singh (deceased), aged about 30 years, with his Mahindra Tractor D.I. 275, bearing registration no. BR45A-9324, had gone to Kochas Bazar for getting his tractor hired, where three unknown merchants had hired the same for loading potato from Pusauli Cold Storage. The informant disclosed that with three unknown persons, his son with his tractor had left at 5:00 PM for Pusauli and in the night at about 9:00 PM, his son Sanjay Singh through his mobile, having SIM no. 7250952142, informed the informant that they had reached to the petrol pump and after parking the tractor, he was going to have meal, whereupon the informant instructed his son not to leave the vehicle, however; his son replied that since it would be difficult to carry the vehicle, he (deceased) informed that he will remain on the tractor itself. Thereafter, no communication could be made, since mobile of the son of the informant was shown to be ‘Switched Off’. On the next date i.e. on 15-10-2010, he (informant) with his relatives, with a view to search for his son, went to Kudra and in Kudra, he also visited petrol pump, which was about 4 km of the eastern side from the road. He enquired from the petrol pump, but he could not get any information, thereafter, the informant went to the cold storage and tried to enquire about his son. After examination of the register of the cold storage, it was found that there was no movement of potato from the cold storage, thereafter, the informant returned back to his village. Again, on 16-10-2010, in search, he went near the Karma Beej Nigam and thereafter, he got an information that in Karma Badhar, one unclaimed dead body was lying. After getting such information, he alongwith his other relatives reached Karma Badhar and he noticed that police official of Kudra Police Station had already reached the place of occurrence and he noticed that the said dead body was of his son Sanjay Singh, and ther













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top