Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Pappu Singh vs State Of Bihar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Pat) 528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ashwani Kumar Singh, Arvind Srivastava, JJ.
Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Pappu Singh & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DD) No. 291 of 2015 With Criminal Appeal (DD) No. 20 of 2015
Decided On : 09-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP, Mr. Dilip Kumar Shina, APPMr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma, Advocate, Abhimanyu Sharma, APP, for the Respondent; Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma, Advocate, For the informant.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Murder – Common object – Life sentence – Inordinate delay caused in transmitting duly recorded oral statement of informant from Hajipur Town Police Station to Sonepur Police Station has not been explained – FIR was not registered on the basis of duly recorded oral statement of informant at Hajipur Town Police Station – Any information which amounts to cognizable offence is mandatorily to be registered as FIR by police – Even if information to be registered as FIR where incident took place is out of jurisdictional area of police station, police is still obliged to take information and register it as FIR and thereafter transfer FIR to jurisdictional police station – It is not understandable as to why family members would have withheld names of culprits from investigating officer of case, if they were knowing their names – There was no reason for them not to disclose name of culprits – Once Court finds that police officers have deliberately failed to register FIR on receipt of information of a cognizable offence and registered FIR after reaching place of occurrence, after inquiring into the matter, after preparing inquest report, after preparing post-mortem report, after due deliberations, consultations and discussions, inalienable inference would be that investigation is tainted – It would be highly unsafe to rely upon such a tainted investigation – Prosecution has not examined Sub-Inspector of Police who had recorded oral statement and prepared inquest report – It was he, who could have unfolded relevant facts of case necessary for adjudication – FIR was not registered promptly, investigation was tainted and witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution are wholly unreliable – Conviction and sentence set aside and appellants acquitted of charges levelled against them. (Paras 55, 56, 63, 67, 72, 77 and 78)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR – FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating oral evidence adduced at trial – Delay in lodging first information report should be satisfactorily explained – Delay in lodging FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting prosecution case and discarding the same – However, if delay is explained to satisfaction of Court, same cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding entire prosecution version. (Paras 70 and 71)
Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Evidence of interested, inimical and related witnesses is to be scrutinized with care and caution – It cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being partisan or related witnesses – If on careful scrutiny, such witness is found to be reliable, it may be sufficient to pass order of conviction thereon. (Para 73)

JUDGMENT

Ashwani Kumar Sing, J. - Heard Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned senior advocate being assisted by Mr. Prakash Kumar and Mr. Ram Binay Singh, learned advocates for the appellants in Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 20 of 2015 and Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 30 of 2015, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned advocate for the appellant in Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 291 of 2015 and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor being assisted by Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State.

2. The appellants in these appeals challenge the judgment of conviction dated 4th December, 2014 and the order of sentence dated 11th December, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 2010 arising out of Sonepur P.S. Case No. 129 of 2008.

3. By the aforesaid judgment dated 4th December, 2014, Surendra Singh (Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 20 of 2015) Amar Nath Singh, Manoj Singh @ Manoj Kumar Singh, Rudresh Singh and Mohan Singh (Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 30 of 2015) have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Pappu Singh (Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 291 of 2015) has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 302 of the IPC as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. After hearing the convicts on the point of sentence, vide consequential order dated 11th December, 2014, Trial Court sentenced the appellants Surendra Singh, Amar Nath Singh, Manoj Singh @ Manoj Kumar Singh, Rudresh Singh and Mohan Singh to undergo R.I. for one and a half years for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the IPC and R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. He sentenced the appellant Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Pappu Singh to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC and R.I. for five years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court, however, directed that all the sentences awarded against the convicts shall run concurrently.

5. Since these three appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and sentence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

6. 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 on 31st May, 2008 at 11:00 AM in Sonepur Police Station under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') in respect of an incident that had occurred at village Akilpur situated at a distance of about 11 kilometers from the Police Station at 09:00 AM on 30th May, 2008.

7. The FIR giving rise to the sessions trial was registered on the basis of the oral statement of Chandrama Singh (P.W.5), which was reduced into writing by one Prakash, a Sub-Inspector of Police of Town Police Station, Hajipur at 01:00 PM on 30th May, 2008 at Sadar Hospital, Hajipur. 8. In his oral statement, the informant Chandrama Singh stated as under :-

"My name is Chandrama Singh. I am son of late Vyas Singh, resident of Village- Akilpur, P.S.- Sonepur, District Saran. Today, on 30th May, 2008 at 01:00 PM, I am giving my statement before the Sub-Inspector of Town Police Station that at around 09:00 AM, I was working in my field situated towards west of the road of my village. My brother Shiv Prasad Singh @ Shivji Singh was returning to his village from the village Tarwa Magarpal. As he reached near Vishwakarma Temple, the accused Surendra Singh, Mohan Singh, Indal Singh, Rakesh Singh @ Pappu Singh, Rudresh Singh, Amamath Singh,