IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
A.M. Badar, Sunil Kumar Panwar, JJ.
Amrendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.108 of 1993
Decided On : 24-11-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Life sentence – On same evidence, some person cannot be held guilty and another person be held innocent – Prosecution evidence will be treated for taking any inference of fact as a whole not partly – If prosecution witness has not been relied upon for convicting other accused persons of same occurrence then this evidence cannot be relied upon for convicting appellant – All prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses – Their evidences suffer from infirmities – There is no consistency in evidences of prosecution witnesses with respect to place of occurrence, time and manner of occurrence – Non-examination of Investigating Officer of case and doctor who has conducted post-mortem report in present case is a serious infirmity resulting in prejudice being caused to accused – Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 19, 29, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44 and 45)
JUDGMENT (CAV)
Sunil Kumar Panwar, J. - Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. It would be relevant to mention here that vide order dated 17.09.2019, this appeal stands abated in respect of appellant No. 1 namely Shambhu Singh. However, this appeal is proceeded in respect of appellant No. 2 namely Amrendra Singh.
3. The appellant Amrendra Singh in this appeal has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 23rd of January, 1993 and the order of sentence dated 25th of January, 1993 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in connection with Sessions Trial No. 110/83/35/87, arising out of Aurangabad (M) P.S. Case No. 197(5) of 1981.
4. By the aforesaid judgment dated 23rd of January, 1993, Shambhu Singh and Amrendra Singh have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
5. After hearing the convicts on the point of sentence, vide consequential order dated 25th of January, 1993, the Trial Court sentenced the appellants Shambhu Singh and Amrendra Singh to undergo imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for three years each under Sections 201 of the I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court, however directed that all the sentences awarded against the convicts shall run concurrently.
6. The Sessions Trial in which the impugned judgment and order was passed relates to the First Information Report (in short 'F.I.R') that had been registered on 26.05.1981 in Aurangabad (M) P.S. Case No. 197(5) of 1981 under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C) in respect of the incidence that had taken place at village Chokhara at 5:00 P.M on 25th of May, 1981.
7. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant namely Jagarnath Singh, who has alleged that on 24.05.1981, the informant along with his father had gone to the house of Jamuna Singh of village Pidasin for marriage proposal of his sister. On next day i.e. 25.05.1981, they returned from village Pidasin to their own village, but on way, at about 4:00 P.M, they stayed for some time at Deo More where they met co-accused Sheonandan Yadav and at about 5:00 P.M., they reached at Chokhra village. It is alleged that as soon as they reached near the house of Ramchandra Singh, situated in the Gali, the accused persons namely Shambhu Singh, Satnarayan Singh and Amrendra Singh, armed with riffle came from the southern side when co-accused Shambhu Singh is alleged to have fired from his pistol causing gunshot injury on the chest of the father of the informant (P.W. 5). On receiving gunshot injury, he fell on the ground, thereafter, co-accused Satnarayan Singh and Amrendra Singh (appellant) also fired from their pistols to the father of the informant. The informant fled away from the place of occurrence but from the rooftop of his house, he saw that accused Shambhu Singh, Satnarayan Singh and Amrendra Singh (appellant) took away the father of the informant. The informant (P.W. 5) could not go out of his house and save his father because accused Ramashiwan Singh, Subodh Singh, Rambodh Singh, Nand Kumar Singh, Ramprasad Singh, Ramjatan Singh, Sheonandan Yadav and 5-6 unknown persons, armed with lathi, danda and country made pistols had surrounded the house of the informant and made indiscriminate firing in the air. At about 1:00 A.M., the accused persons left the house of the informant. The informant, thereafter went to the police station along with his brother Bishwanath Singh (P.W. 2) and Awadhesh Singh (P.W. 3) and recorded statements. The Police thereafter registered a case and started investigating the matter. On 27.05.1981, a beheaded dead body was found buried near Keshar river situated between village Maya Bigha and Irki. At some distance, the head of the body wa
The prosecution failed to substantiate charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, holds significant evidentiary value in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
The court holds that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant contradictions in eyewitness accounts and absence of supporting medical evidence, warranting acqu....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.