Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ashwani Kumar Singh, Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, JJ.
Ram Prasad Mehtar Alias Ram Prasad Ram & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.362 of 1995
Decided On : 22-11-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – In a criminal case, FIR is an important document even though it is not a substantive piece of evidence – Prompt FIR lends credence to prosecution version and often prevents possibility of a coloured version being put by informant – Since information given to police was not cryptic and it related to a cognizable offence, it was incumbent upon police officer to have instituted FIR promptly – Institution of the FIR after inquest report was prepared, post-mortem examination was conducted and major part of investigation was conducted gives rise to presumption that same was instituted after due deliberations and consultation – Inordinate delay caused in instituting FIR has not been explained at all by prosecution – Important police witnesses, who could have thrown some light on reason for delay, have been withheld by prosecution – Since no satisfactory explanation has been given by prosecution for delay caused in lodging FIR, same gives rise to possibility of concoction of evidence by prosecution – Testimony of witnesses that prosecution has been able to prove that death of deceased was homicidal as doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination, has completely ruled out the possibility of ante mortem injuries found on person of deceased due to fall into well – There is no eye-witness to incident of killing of son of informant – Earliest version given to police has been withheld – Non-examination of Investigating Officer has certainly prejudiced case of defence – Discrepancies in evidence of two most important witnesses are not marginal – They materially affect core of prosecution case and render their testimonies liable to be discredited – Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside. (Paras 27, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 45, 48 and 49)
Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Normal discrepancies are bound to occur in deposition of witnesses due to lapse of time – But where discrepancies are material and create serious doubt about truthfulness of witnesses and material improvements are made while deposing before court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. (Para 44)
JUDGMENT
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. - Vide judgment dated 19th September, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Patna (for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 1991 arising out of Phulwari P.S. Case No. 333 of 1990, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Consequently, vide an order dated 20th September, 1995, the Trial Court sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC.
2. The appellants have preferred the present appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
3. The prosecution case, as narrated by the informant Jawahar Ram in his fardbeyan recorded by Mr. J Bage, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Pirbahore Police Station, Patna on 15th September, 1990 at about 09:00 AM at PMCH Emergency Ward is that on 14th September, 1990 at about 06:45 PM both the accused persons, namely, Ram Prasad Mehtar @ Ram Prasad Ram and Mukesh Mehtar @ Mukesh Ram together with one Babli Sao son of Bhagat Ram and another unknown accused came to his house and assaulted his son Pradeep Kumar by means of lathi and chhura. He alleged that the accused persons had given threatening prior to committing the assault upon his son regarding which he had gone to the police station for reporting the matter and when he returned back, he noticed that such an occurrence had already taken place. He carried his injured son to Phulwari hospital. The doctor, who treated his son at Phulwari hospital, referred him to PMCH, Patna pursuant to which the injured son was taken to PMCH, Patna where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment in the following morning. He stated that the incident took place because of previous litigation going on with the accused persons.
4. After recording the fardbeyan at the emergency ward of PMCH, Patna, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Pirbahore Police Station forwarded the fardbeyan to the S.H.O. of Phulwari Police Station on 15th September, 1990 pursuant to which Phulwari PS. Case No. 333 of 1990 was registered on 16th September, 1990 at 12:05 PM against the accused persons, namely, Ram Prasad Ram, Mukesh Ram, Babli Sao, son of Bhagat Ram and others unknown under Section 304 of the IPC and investigation was taken up.
5. It would be evident from the record that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police J. Bage of Pirbahore Police Station, who had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant on 15th September, 1990 at 09:00 AM at emergency ward of PMCH, Patna had prepared the inquest report of the deceased Pradeep Kumar on 15th September, 1990 at 09:15 AM.
6. It would further appear that even the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Pradeep Kumar was conducted by Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh (P.W.1), a medical officer of Patna Medical College, Patna on 15th September, 1990 at 12:15 PM.
7. Thus, it prior to the institution of the FIR on 16th September, 1990 at 12:05 PM, the inquest report was prepared and the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased had already been conducted.
8. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons finding the case true under Section 302/34 of the IPC vide charge-sheet no. 1 dated 9th January, 1991.
9. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, who after complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C'), committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial.
10. After appearance of the accused persons, the Trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellants on 4th April, 1991 for intentionally or knowingly causing death of
Conviction set aside - FIR is ante-timed and there are no independent witness of the incident. Prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants-accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The importance of prompt lodging of FIR, credibility of witnesses, and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused were central legal principles established in the judgment.
(1) FIR is an important document even though it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Prompt FIR prevents possibility of coloured version being put by informant.(2) Testimony of witnesses cannot be....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
