Parsuram Roy, son of Bhagwat Roy vs State of Bihar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Pat) 77

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
A. M. Badar, Sunil Kumar Panwar, JJ.
Parsuram Roy, son of Bhagwat Roy - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.259 of 1995
Decided On : 02-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 114 – Abetment – For application of Section 114 of Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that person must abet commission of offence some times before at different place and then also is present when offence is committed – It is necessary first to show circumstances which constitute abetment – This section is not applicable to a case where abetment is committed at the time when offence takes place and abettor helps in commission of offence. (Para 25)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 302/114 – Murder and abetment of commission of murder – Life sentence – There is consistency in evidence of witnesses with respect to place of occurrence, time and manner of occurrence and except minor contradictions, nothing major surfaced to discard their evidences – Minor contradictions are natural upon situation from where occurrence could be seen by them – It could be safely be concluded that deceased succumbed to his injury caused by firearm which is likely to be possible as injury has been caused by firearm weapon of appellant/convict – Credibility of testimony of prosecution witnesses create and inspire confidence – Appellant no.2 had no knowledge about gun which carried by appellant no.1 – At the time of commission of murder, appellant no.2 was not armed with any deadly weapon in his hand and mere an advice or simple suggestion does not come within purview of abetment in any manner – A word uttered in anger or emotion without intending consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation – Appeal Partly allowed. (Paras 20, 21, 22, 25, 27 to 30)

JUDGMENT :

Sunil Kumar Panwar, J.

In the instant appeal, the appellants Parsuram Roy and Umesh Roy have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.08.1995 and 24.08.1995 respectively passed by Shri Diwakar Jha, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Sessions Trial No. 564 of 1989 arising out of Parbatta P.S. Case No. 26 of 1989.

2. By the aforesaid judgment, appellant no.1 Parsuram Roy had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant no.2 Umesh Roy had been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/114 of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing on the point of sentence vide consequential order, the trial Court sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

3. It would be proper to mention here that in this case appellant/accused Parsuram Roy stands charged of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant no.2 Umesh Roy stands separately charged for the offence under Sections 302/114 of the Indian Penal Code. Other accused Wakil Roy, Bhola Rai, Borhan Roy, Bhumi Roy and Sanjay Roy stand separately charged for the offence under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to convict appellants by holding that they are guilty of the offence of commission of murder of the deceased, namely, Buchi Chaudhary. Rest of the accused persons, namely, Wakil Roy, Borhan Roy, Bhumi Roy, Bhola Roy and Sanjay Roy came to be acquitted, hence, this appeal by the appellants.

4. The prosecution case recapitulated as here under is based on the fardbayan of one Rambaran Chaudhary (PW-8) dated 03.03.1989 disclosing the fact that at about 1.00 P.M., the informant had been in his field in Mauja Chakprayag to watch his Khar stored in the field, 15 days ago the day of report and found Parsuram Roy, Wakil Roy son of Bhagwat Roy, Umesh Roy, Yamuna Roy, Pappu Roy son of Umesh Roy, Bhagwat Roy son of Shiv Charan Roy, Sanjay Roy son of Bhagwat Roy, lifting bundles of Khar belonging to the informant. It further transpires that the informant made protest against lifting of Khar whereupon accused above named started abusing the informant. It further reveals that the informant, but of fear, made as retreat to his house and disclosed what happened in the field to the family members. It further transpires that at about 2.30 P.M. the aforesaid accused reached on the unmetalled road in front of the house of Ramanand Chaudhary to the west of the Ring Bandh with Khar laden on two bullock carts. It further reveals that the informant asked Buchi Chaudhary to stop bullock carts and in the meantime Parsuram Roy, Pappu Roy and Sanjay Roy jumped down from bullock carts and ran to their houses and Parsuram Roy armed with country made gun, Pappu Roy armed with DBBL gun and Sanjay Roy armed with country made pistol returned to the place of occurrence. It further transpires that Bhumi Roy, Bhola Roy, Mantlal Roy armed with lathi followed the aforesaid three accused persons. It further transpires that Umesh Roy ordered Parsuram Roy to shoot at and Parsuram Roy opened fire from his country made gun at Buchi Chaudhary. It further reveals that Buchi Chaudhary received injury on his chest at the right side and fell down on the ground. It further transpires that the informant ran to Buchi Chaudhary and tried to lift him up but Pappu Roy with the intention to cause murder of the informant, opened fire from DBBL gun but the informant did not sustain any injury. It further transpires that villagers Yogeshwar Chaudhary (PW-7), Sajjan, Ramanand Chaudhary (PW-3), Surendra Chaudhary (PW-2), Damodar Chaudhary and others assembled at the place of occurrence on the sound of gun fire. It further reveals that Buchi Chaudhary succumbed to the injury.

5. The Investigating Officer, Navin Prasad (PW-9) registered Parvatta P.S. Case No. 26 of 1989 on 03.03.1989 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 379, 307 and 302 of the