IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, JJ.
Nawal Singh Son Of Late Jagdish Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.230 of 2014
Decided on : 23-12-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 449 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Murder and house trespass – Life sentence – I.O. was a material witness – He could have unfolded genesis of incident and essential parts of prosecution case – Members of police force have not been examined which certainly raises suspicion – Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 who are inimical, related witnesses as also interested witnesses would not be safe to convict appellant unless their evidences are corroborated by some independent material particulars – On rest of evidence no conclusion in a charge of murder can be based – Prosecution has failed to establish charge beyond all reasonable doubts – Appellant acquitted. (Paras 43, 44 and 49)
1994) Supp. (2) 372 ; AIR 2018 SC 3597 – Referred.
2000 Cr.L.J. 2982 ; 2014 (12) SCC 261; (2012) 4 SCC 722; (2003) 2 SCC 401 – Relied.
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
The present criminal appeal arises out of the judgment dated 10th January, 2014 passed by learned Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judgte-4, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 1155 of 2010 arising out of Sabour P.S. Case No. 154 of 1995 dated 05.07.1995 by which the sole appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) as also Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant has also challenged the order dated 15.01.2014 by which consequent to the judgment of the conviction the learned trial court has sentenced the appellant to under go rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/-under Section 302 IPC and further ordered that in case of non-payment of fine the appellant shall suffer an additional imprisonment of three years, for the offence under Section 449 IPC the appellant has been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default one year extra imprisonment and further under Section 27 of the Arms Act the appellant has been awarded a sentence of three years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in case of default of payment of fine six months extra imprisonment has been imposed. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
Prosecution Case
2. One Ashish Kumar Singh (PW-2) lodged his fardbeyan on 05.07.1995 at 09:30 A.M. in village Nadiyawa under Sabour Police Station before the Officer-In-charge of the Police Station. He alleged that on 04.07.1995 at about 09:00 P.M., he had been sleeping at the veramda of his house after taking dinner. His father was sleeping in the angan (Courtyard) on the floor. Whereas his mother was sleeping in the western side of the veramda on a ‘chowki’ with her two little grandsons.
At about 12 O’clock in the night, the informant heard a sound as somebody jumped in his angan whereupon he got awaken and found that the co-villager Nawal Singh (the appellant) and Anil Singh (brother of the appellant) both sons of late Jagdish Singh were standing having gun in their hands. Nawal Singh asked “Sale chup chap raho” and Anil Singh opened the eastern side door of the house whereafter co-accused Suresh Mandal, Bulla Mandal, Kapoori Tanti and Rana Singh being the co-villagers of the informant, Jitendra Singh and Surji Singh residents of village ‘Chhoti Zameen’ under the same police station together with 8-10 other unknown persons entered in the angan of the informant. The informant thereafter taking the opportunity and saving himself from the eyes of the accused persons entered inside the room of the house situated in the middle towards western side and after concealing himself he was watching the occurrence. He alleged that Bulla Mandal (acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 632 of 1996) asked “Dekhte kya ho goli maro”, on this the co-accused Suresh Mandal (acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 632 of 1996) fired from his gun on the father of the informant who was lying on the floor of the angan being afraid of the accused persons. The informant further claimed that at this stage when his mother came to save his father, Nawal Singh (the appellant) fired on her by his gun, thereafter co-accused Jitendra Singh fired on the face of the mother of the informant and another co-accused Anil Singh fired on the father of the informant. The accused persons had fired 7-8 bullets at the mother and the father of the informant and fled away from the door of the eastern side.
The informant claimed that after the accused persons fled away he and his elder sister Nandini Devi (P.W.-1) wife of late Munna Singh resident of village Budhshan, P.S. Meharma, Dist Godda who was at the residence of P.W. 2 raised hulla shouting and crying whereupon co-villagers assembled there and the members of the force deputed in the village came who were told about the occurrence. The informant alleges that the occurrence had taken place because of the enmity with the family of Nawal Singh (the appellant) as the partie
Amar Nath Jha Vs. Nand Kishore Singh & Others
Govindaraju @ Govinda vs. State by Sriramapuram Police Station and Another
Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand
Mohan Lal & Others vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in 2000 Cr.L.J. 2982
Nallabothu Ramulu Seetharamaiah & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Point of Law : When there are eyewitnesses to prove the charge, failure on the part of the prosecution to establish every link in the chain of circumstance would become irrelevant.
The court established that eyewitness testimony from related witnesses can be credible and sufficient for conviction, provided it is consistent and corroborated by other evidence, and that the absenc....
Motive is not essential for conviction in murder cases if direct and credible eyewitness testimony is present.
Conviction for murder by unlawful assembly sustainable on reliable sole eyewitness to killing, corroborated by medical evidence and abduction witnesses, despite FIR delay, witness non-examination, an....
The need for reliable witness testimonies and corroborating evidence, especially in the absence of independent witnesses, to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Key legal principles established include the standards of eyewitness reliability and the requirements for proving possession of intent in conspiracy cases, emphasizing that absence of evidence negate....
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 ....
Merely, because they have not been examined is not a ground to disbelieve an otherwise credible ocular account rendered by a person injured in the incident whose presence, otherwise also, is natural ....
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.