IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and KHATIM REZA, JJ.
(17.10.2022)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1423 of 2007 with 25 of 2008
Kamta Prasad (in 1423)
Rajesh Kumar (in 25) : Appellants
Vs.
State of Bihar : Respondent
(in both)
Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302 & 201 and Arms Act, 1959–Section 27–Accused persons killed the deceased and threw the dead body in the river which was discovered on the next day–appellants Kamta Prasad and his son Rajesh Kumar are alleged to have fired at the deceased–P.W.I. claiming to be a eye–witness of the dead body being thrown away in the river after having been killed, the dead body was received was not retrieved till late in the evening and it was found on the next day from a place in relation to which there is no evidence adduced at the trial–the manner in which the witnesses claim to have witnessed the occurrence does not inspire much confidence as in natural course of circumstances, a perpetrator of a crime would avoid someone becoming a witness to commission of offence the appellants and others had sufficient opportunity to kill the deceased when they were not within the sight of the eyewitnesses–the deceased could have been conveniently taken by the accused persons to the river side without letting the eyewitnesses know about the same and killed him–in the present case, it is the prosecution's case that the deceased was first brought under the captivity of the miscreants before the prosecutions witnesses, there after he was assaulted whereafter he was taken to the riverside–though shots were fired by miscreants to scare P.W.I., but the informant and P.W.I. continued to follow them till they reached the riverside and subsequently crossed the river in a boat a reasonable doubt is created in respect of manner and place of occurance–appellants given benefit of doubt–impugned judgment set aside–Appeals allowed. (Para 15, 16 and 17)
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–Since both these appeals arise of the same judgment and order of the learned Trial Court, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order.
2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.11.2007 and order of sentence dated 13.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. 3, Nalanda (Biharsharif) in Sessions Trial No. 666 of 2003 arising out of Asthawan P.S. Case No. 186 of 2001, whereby appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:—
| Appellant | Conviction under Section | Imprisonment | Sentence Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine |
|
|
| CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1423 of 2007 |
|
|
| Kamta Prasad | 302 of Indian Penal Code | For life | 15,000/- | Five years imprisonment |
|
| 201 of the Indian Penal Code | Five years imprisonment | 3,000/- | Simple Imprisonment for two years |
|
|
| CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 25 of 2008 |
|
|
| Rajesh Kumar | 302 of Indian Penal Code | For life | 15,000/- | Five years imprisonment |
|
| 201 of Indian Penal Code | Five years imprisonment | 3,000/- | Simple Imprisonment for two years |
|
| 27 of the Arms Act | Three years imprisonment | 2,000/- | One year imprisonment |
3. Heard Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, learned counsel with Mr. Rudal Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the appeals, Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1423 of 2007 and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 25 of 2008.
4. A written report of the brother of the deceased, Sanjay Kumar, submitted to the officer-in-charge of Bind Police Station on 04.09.2001, is the basis for registration of First Information Report (F.I.R. for brevity). The prosecution's case, as narrated by the informant in the written report, is that in the morning of 04.09.2001 at about 7:00 am, he had gone to pluck vegetables with his brother Munna (Manoj Kumar @ Munna Kumar, P.W.-1) from a garden. His brother, Vipin Kumar (the deceased) was, at that point of time, going towards the field to defecate. At about 7:45 am, when the informant and his brother Munna Kumar (P.W.-1) were returning to their house, the deceased met them. The informant and P.W.-1 suggested the deceased to accompany them to their house to which he told them that he would come later. The informant was, thereafter, sitting with his family members at the doorway of their house when they saw the deceased Vipin Kumar, captured by Kamta Prasad [appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1423 of 2007]; and his three sons Jayram Kumar, Rajesh Kumar [appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 25 of 2008] and Mano Kumar, all of whom were armed with country made rifle, being brought towards their house by them. They were beating the deceased with the butt of a rifle. The persons named in the F.I.R. have been described as “gotiyas” (agnates) of the informant. When the family members of the informant protested to the said misdoings of the persons named in the F.I.R., threatening them of killing the deceased, they forcibly took the deceased towards Bahwa river, situated at south-western side of the village. When the accused persons were forcibly taking the deceased towards the river, the informant and P.W.-1 followed them. The appellant Kamta Prasad thereafter fired twice to scare the informant and his brother (P.W.-1). Despite the gun shots fired by the appellant Kamta Prasad, the informant and his brother Munna Kumar (P.W.-1), kept following the miscreants. The informant, thereafter witnessed the miscreants including these appellants, crossing the river Bahwa in a boat, with the deceased under their captivity. After they crossed the river, on the other side
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 ....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
The conviction upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite the absence of independent witnesses, affirming the trial court's judgment.
The reliability of eyewitness accounts and dying declarations is crucial for a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC; discrepancies and doubts in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.
Once there is no eye-witness of incident prosecution will have to establish a motive for commission of crime.
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.