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

2021 Supreme(Pat) 161

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, ARVIND SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
The State of Bihar – Petitioner
Versus
Bachesh Kumar Singh S/o Baiju Singh – Respondent
Death Reference No. 2 of 2017, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1271 of 2016, Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 30, 32, 62, 96, 184 of 2017
Decided On : 21-05-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Dr. Mayanand Jha, Mr. Surendra Singh, Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Mr. Rakesh Singh, Mr. Ansul, Mr. Sunil Srivastava, Mr. Girish Chandra Sharma, Mr. Upendra Kumar.
For the Respondents: Ms. Surya Nilambari, Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Ms. Shashi Bala Verma.

Point of Law: Murder – Conviction set aside - Conviction in a criminal trial is required to be certain and not doubtful - Burden of proof of- guilt of an accused is upon prosecution

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 - Arms Act – Section 27 - Explosive Substances Act – Section 3 & 4 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 154 , 173(2) , 313 and 207 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 134 – Offence of Murder – Unlawful assembly – Challenged - Rioting, armed with dangerous weapons - FIR giving rise to Sessions Trial was registered on basis of the statement , wife of, one of persons, who died in occurrence, which was reduced into writing, Sub-Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-in- Charge of Karpi Police Station at house of situated at Senari under police station area of district, which was then part of Jehanabad district- police recovered 34 dead bodies and inquests were held at spot - Whether house could be seen from where he was hiding - Whether they were involved in taking him to Thakurbadi or assaulting him.

Finding of the Court: accused persons have been subjected to seven standard and identical questions even though witnesses against them are disparate - While some of accused persons have been identified by some witnesses, others have been identified by a single witness - For instance, evidence against, is that they tied hands - However, they have not been confronted with these evidences - Instead of seeking their explanation with regard to incriminating material, accused persons have been asked to explain charges for which they were being tried - Conviction in a criminal trial is required to be certain and not doubtful - Burden of proof of- guilt of an accused is upon prosecution - It must stand by itself - In present case, on appreciation of evidence adduced during trial, Court find that there is a real and reasonable doubt as to guilt of appellants.

Result: Appeals stand allowed

JUDGMENT :

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. The appellants in these appeals challenge the common judgment of conviction dated 27.10.2016 and order of sentence dated 15.11.2016 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial No. 93/2013 and 281/2015. By the aforesaid judgment dated 27.10.2016, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 27 of the Arms Act and 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act. Consequent upon conviction, vide aforesaid order dated 15.11.2016 the appellants Bachesh Kumar Singh in, Budhan Yadav, Gopal Sao, Butai Yadav, Satendra Das, Lalan Pasi, Dwarik Paswan, Kariman Paswan, Gorai Paswan and Uma Paswan have been sentenced to death and the appellants Mungeshwar Yadav, Vinay Paswan and Arvind Paswan have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for two years. All these appellants have been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months, R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for two years, R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months and R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months. It is directed by the Trial Court that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. After passing the impugned judgment and order, the Trial Court made a reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the convicts Bachesh Kumar Singh, Budhan Yadav, Gopal Sao, Butai Yadav, Satendra Das, Lalan Pasi, Dwarik Paswan, Kariman Paswan, Gorai Paswan and Uma Paswan, which has been registered as Death Reference No. 2 of 2017.

3. The appeals preferred by the appellants and the reference made by the Trial Court have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

4. The Sessions Trial in which the impugned judgment and order were passed relates to the First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) that had been registered at 10:00 AM on 19th March, 1999 in Karpi Police Station under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of an incident that had occurred at Senari situated at a distance of 18 km from the Police Station between 07:30 PM to 11:00 PM on 18th March, 1999. The formal FIR would indicate that the police had received the information regarding the occurrence through wireless message at 11:40 PM on 18th March, 1999.

5. The FIR giving rise to the Sessions Trial was registered on the basis of the oral statement of Chintamani Devi, wife of late Awadh Kishore Sharma, one of the persons, who died in the occurrence, which was reduced into writing by Jamuna Singh, the Sub-Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-in-Charge of Karpi Police Station on 19th March, 1999 at 2:30 AM at the house of Chintamani Devi situated at Senari under the police station area Karpi of district Arwal, which was then part of Jehanabad district.

6. In her oral statement, the informant Chintamani Devi stated as under:-

“My name is Chintamani Devi, wife of late Awadh Kishore Sharma, resident of Senari, P.S. Karpi, District Jehanabad (Arwal). Today, on 19th March, 1999, at 02:30 AM, I am giving my statement before the SHO of Karpi Police Station that last evening at 7.30 PM, my son Madhukar @ Jhabbu

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