Back
2019 Supreme(Pat) 506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, PARTHA SARTHY, JJ.
Siya Pandit, Son of Madhu Pandit - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.248 of 1994
Decided On : 01-05-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Dr. Rajsh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove shared intention in a murder case, and the importance of consistent and credible testimonies from prosecution witnesses.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302/34, Arms Act - Section 27
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of two appellants for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellants instigated and committed the murder of the deceased in a lane in front of the deceased's house.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies regarding the place of occurrence and the identification of the assailants were inconsistent and raised doubts. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant shared common intention with the deceased appellant to commit the murder.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the place of occurrence, and the shared intention of the appellants in committing the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, the lack of evidence of shared intention, and the absence of grudge or annoyance from the acquitted appellant towards the deceased.
Final Decision: The court acquitted appellant no. 1 of the charge of murder and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence order against him.
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 11.4.1994 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif, in Sessions Trial No. 618/92, by which and whereunder learned Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) convicted the appellant No. 1, Siya Pandit, and appellant No. 2, Jagdish Pandit (since dead) for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and, furthermore, appellant No. 2, namely, Jagdish Pandit (since dead), was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and, accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years thereunder. However, the learned trial court did not impose fine under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code upon the appellants but ordered that both the sentences would run concurrently.
2. It is pertinent to note here that during the pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 2, namely, Jagdish Pandit, died and vide order dated 12.8.2010 his appeal stood abated.
3. Briefly stated prosecution case is that P.W. 3 (Keshav Pandit) gave his fard-e-beyan to P.W. 5 (Rajeshwar Sharma), the then S.I. of Noorsarai Police Station, on 15.5.1992 at 01.00 A.M. at village Meyar, to this effect, that on 14.5.1992 at about 10.15 P.M., someone threw a brick on his house and, thereafter, his brother Chhote Pandit (deceased) along with his wife (PW -2) came out of their house. The informant claimed that he, too, came out of his house and saw that the appellant Siya Pandit armed with country-made rifle and deceased appellant, namely, Jagdish Pandit, armed with country-made pistol were standing in front of his house. The informant claimed to have identified the aforesaid persons in the moonlight as well as in the light of torch. The aforesaid persons were abusing the deceased and were threatening to close the lane situated in front of house of informant as well as deceased, upon which, some altercation took place between the deceased and the aforesaid persons and, thereafter, appellant No. 1, namely, Siya Pandit ordered deceased appellant Jagdish Pandit to shoot the deceased and after that deceased appellant Jagdish Pandit opened fire of his pistol which hit at the chest of the deceased Chhote Pandit, as a result whereof, he fell down at his door and died then and there. The informant claimed that he raised alarm, which attracted the neighbours but appellant No. 1 and deceased appellant No. 2 fled away towards north side. However, appellant No. 2 left his slipper on the place of occurrence, while fleeing from there. The informant, further, claimed that PW -1 had also seen the occurrence as before the aforesaid occurrence, he had made attempt to pacify the altercation. PW-3 (informant) claimed that Ganauri Pandit, who happens to be the father of the deceased appellant Jagdish Pandit, wanted to close the lane situated in front of house of the informant and the deceased.
4. On the basis of aforesaid fard-e-beyan, Noor Sarai P. S. Case No. 83 of 1992 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered on the same day and after that formal first information report was drawn up against appellant no. 1 and deceased appellant no. 2 for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
5. PW-5, namely, Rajeshwar Sharma took charge of investigation. He inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses and after completion of other formalities of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against appellant no. 1 as well as deceased appellant no. 2. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, in usual way.
6. Appellant no. 1 and deceased appellant no. 2 were put on trial before learned trial court and, accordingly, they stood c
