Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, ARVIND SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Sushil Singh S/o. Late Gaya Prasad Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 736 of 2016
Decided On : 30-03-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR is an important document even though it is not a substantive piece of evidence – Prompt lodging of FIR lends credence to prosecution version and prevents possibility of a coloured version being put by informant – However, there is no duration of time fixed by statutory provisions under Cr.P.C. for giving information of a crime to the police – Law requires that FIR should be filed within reasonable time – Question of reasonable time is to be decided by Court in facts and circumstances of a particular case – It is equally well settled that even a long delay in lodging FIR can be condoned if plausible explanation is given and evidence adduced during trial demonstrates that there is no motive of implicating innocent person – However, undue or unreasonable delay in lodging FIR gives rise to suspicion – It puts Court on guard to look for possible motive and explanation for delay and consider its effect on trustworthiness or otherwise of testimony of witnesses. (Paras 49 and 50)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Murder – Life sentence – Inquest reports do not contain case number on them – They do not even contain name of any accused person even as suspect – Police Officers, who had prepared inquest reports have not been examined as witnesses in present case – There is no explanation for their non-examination – Much prior to lodging of present FIR, investigation of case had already commenced and much prior to institution of FIR, two seizure lists and two inquest reports were prepared – Witnesses who have been produced by prosecution during trial are either closely related to deceased or they are accused in counter case – Witnesses examined in the case are also not consistent about place of occurrence and manner of occurrence – Injuries sustained by appellant has not been explained by prosecution party – Investigating Officer of present case was also Investigating Officer of counter case – Articles seized from place of occurrence were neither mentioned in station diary nor were kept in Malkhana of concerned police station – They were not even produced before Court during trial – Reasonable doubt about veracity of prosecution version is created in mind of Court – Since there is reasonable doubt as to guilt of appellants, they are entitled to benefit of the same – Impugned judgment of conviction and consequent order of sentence set aside and appellants acquitted from charges levelled against them. (Paras 54, 55, 59, 62 to 64)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 235 – In criminal case as life and liberty of accused are involved, a strict standard of proof is required as to prove guilt of accused – It is not preponderance of probabilities that establishes guilt of accused – It is necessary that evidence on record must prove it beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction cannot be based on consideration that prosecution story may be true – Accused can only be convicted if Court reaches conclusion that prosecution story must be proved – Burden of proving guilt of accused is upon prosecution. (Para 61
JUDGMENT :
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.
Vide judgment dated 22.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Trial No. 24/13/96/14 arising out of Aurangabad Mufassil P.S. Case No. 151 of 2012 the appellants have been held guilty for the charges under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and 27 of the Arms Act. Vide order dated 28.06.2016 the Trial Court sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 302 of the IPC. No separate sentence was passed by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In the present appeal the appellants have challenged the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
2. The prosecution case as alleged in the written report submitted by the informant Ajay Yadav to the S.H.O. of Aurangabad Mufassil Police Station is that on 02.10.2012 at 07:30 PM when his uncle Tega Yadav and cousin brother Daroga Yadav reached near Devi Asthan situated in the southern side of his village, he saw his co-villagers Ajay Singh, Sushil Singh, Arvind Singh, Ranjan Singh, Ashok Singh, Ram Pravesh Singh, Naresh Singh, Manoj Singh and Dilip Singh being variously armed with khanti and lathi standing there. After seeing his uncle Tega Yadav and his cousin brother Daroga Yadav near Devi Asthan, the aforesaid persons started abusing them. They stated that ‘Tegwa’ and ‘Darogwa’ have come here for watering crops. They should be killed today. On such exhortation, Sushil Singh fired from the pistol causing injury in the abdomen of Tega Yadav and Raju Singh fired from his pistol causing injury in the left rib-cage of his cousin brother Daroga Yadav as a result of which they died on the spot. When he tried to save them, he too was assaulted with lathi by Ranjan Singh over his right eyebrow and Arvind Singh assaulted him with lathi on his left hand. The occurrence was witnessed by his co-villagers Kameshwar Yadav (P.W.4), Chhedi Yadav (P.W.3), Nagendra Yadav (P.W.1) and others.
3. The aforesaid written report was handed over by the informant to the S.H.O. of Town Police Station, Camp Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad on 02.10.2012, who forwarded the same to the S.H.O. of Aurangabad Mufassil Police Station as the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Aurangabad Mufassil Police Station.
4. On receipt of the written report, the S.H.O. of Aurangabad Mufassil Police Station drew a formal first information report (for short ‘FIR’). He registered Aurangabad Mufassil P.S. Case No. 151 of 2012 dated 03.10.2012 at 01:00 AM under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 504 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and himself took up investigation of the case.
5. After completing the investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 245 of 2012 dated 30.12.2012 against the appellants and two others, namely, Ranjan Singh and Ashok Singh under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 302, 504 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and kept the investigation open in respect of other accused persons.
6. Accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate. After complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’), the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
7. Subsequently, the Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against the appellants. It further charged the appellants and two others sent up accused persons, namely, Ranjan Singh and Ashok Singh under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 and 504/149 of the IPC.
8. The appellants and the two other accused persons, who were put on trial, did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced.
9. During trial, in order to p
(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....
Assault and Murder – Conviction confirmed - Sketch-map would be admissible so far as it indicates all that Sub-Inspector saw himself at the spot; but any mark put on sketch-map based on statements ma....
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
