SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Pat) 438

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH and HARISH KUMAR, JJ.
(17.8.2022)
Death Ref. No.7 of 2021 with Cri. Appeal (DB) Nos. 513, 556 of 2021
State of Bihar (in 7)
Furchan Miyan @ Fuchan Miyan (in 513)
Samsher Miyan (in 556) : Appellants
vs.
Samsher Miyan & Ors. (in 7)
State of Bihar (in 513, 556) : Respondents

Advocates:
For the Petitioners: None (in 7)
For the Respondents: M/s J.P. Singh, Amicus Curiae, Kamlesh Kumar Singh, Amicus Curiae (in 7)
For the Appellants : M/s Rajani Ranjan Prasad Singh, Pratik Mishra (in 513); M/s Ashutosh Nath, Yash Singh (in 556).
For the State : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma (in 513, 556)
For the Informant : Mr. Ravindra Kumar (in 513, 556)

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34, 387 read with 34 and 120B – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Double murder, attempt to murder, extortion and conspiracy – Common intention – Death sentence – Despite knowledge of a heinous offence having been committed, FIR was lodged by Police after a considerable lapse of time – Police started investigation even without registration of case – It would be highly unsafe to rely upon a tainted investigation – It may be a case of blind murder and nobody knew who were real culprits – Medical evidence is definitely not in alignment with ocular evidence relating to time of incident and death of deceased – Prosecution has failed to establish place of occurrence – There is no explanation as to why injured witnesses have not been examined – Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants – Impugned judgment of conviction and consequent order of sentence set aside and Death Reference rejected. (Paras 38, 43, 47, 49, 52 to 58)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – Object of FIR is to set criminal law in motion – It is information given to Police on the basis of which criminal law is set in motion – Though, there is no duration of time which is fixed for giving information of a crime to police, if police officer deliberately fails to record FIR on receipt of information of a cognizable offence and registers FIR after considerable lapse of time, entire investigation gets contaminated – Faulty investigation may lead to collapse of prosecution case and criminal justice system. (Para 44)

Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684; Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1983 SCR (3) 413 – Referred.

State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Punati Ramulu, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 590; Mukesh vs. NCT of Delhi, (2017) 6 SCC 1 – Relied.

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.:–The appellants Furchan Miyan @ Fuchan Miyan, Samsher Miyan and Guddu Miyan have been held guilty vide order dated 09.03.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No.209 of 2019 arising out of Ara Town P.S. Case No.739 of 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IXth, Bhojpur at Ara to the charges under Sections 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34, 387 read with 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

2. Consequent upon the conviction, vide order dated 14.06.2021, the aforesaid convicts have been sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.one lakh each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 387 read with 34 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence under Section 120B of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The Trial Court has directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Reference made by the Trial Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’) for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the convicts in the aforesaid sessions trial has been registered as Death Reference No.07 of 2021.

4. The appellant Furchan Miyan @ Fuchan Miyan has challenged his conviction and sentence awarded in the aforesaid sessions trial by filing Criminal Appeal (DB) No.513 of 2021. The appellants Samsher Miyan and Guddu Miyan have challenged their conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court by filing Criminal Appeal (DB) No.556 of 2021.

5. These appeals preferred by the appellants as well as the reference made by the Trial Court under Section 366 of the CrPC have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

6. The sessions trial in which the impugned judgment and order were passed relates to the first information report (for short ‘FIR’) that had been registered at 6:30 pm on 06.12.2018 in Bhojpur Town Police Station in respect of an incident that had occurred at Shobha Market, Dharman Chowk situated at a distance of 0.5 kilometre in the eastern direction from the Ara Town Police Station on the basis of the written report submitted by one Akil Ahmad.

7. In his written report, Akil Ahmad stated that on 06.12.2018, at around 12:48 pm, when he, his brother and family members were running the shop in Shobha Market, suddenly, Khurshid Qurashi, Md. Naiyer, Raju Khan, Babli Miyan, Abdullah Qureshi, Sarla Miyan, Ahmad Miyan, Shamsher Miyan and Taushif Miyan, all residents of Mohalla- Milki and Kasai Tola, P.S.- Ara Town, District-Bhojpur and 4-5 unknown persons came to the shop and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh) as extortion money. When his brother denied to pay the said amount, all the accused persons took out pistol from their lower back and started hurling abuses. When his brother Imran opposed, Khurshid Qurashi and Naiyer Miyan opened indiscriminate firing upon Imran because of which he died on the spot. At the same time, Babli Miyan and Shamsher Miyan also opened fire with an intention to kill him and a bullet hit him in his abdomen as a result of which he became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he came to know that one another person had also sustained gun shot injury in the said incident. He attributed the motive for the said incident to be demand of Rs.10,00,000/- as extortion money by the accused persons because he and his family members had purchased a shop in the Shobha Market.

8. Upon receipt of the aforesaid written report, Jay Prakash Singh, Station House Officer (for short

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top