IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
A. M. BADAR and RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.216 of 2014
(4.11.2022)
Sanjay Paswan ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Truth or otherwise of evidence has to be weighed pragmatically – Court would be required to analyze evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards accused – Close scrutiny of evidence of such type of witnesses is required to be done and if their evidence is found to be trustworthy, same can be accepted – When witnesses are inter-related or otherwise interested in prosecution then their testimony should pass test of close and severe scrutiny. (Para 11)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life imprisonment – Accused had inflicted blows of knife on chest and neck of deceased with full force depicting his intention – Intention to commit murder is established from version of autopsy surgeon as well as ocular evidence of eye witnesses – There is absolutely nothing in cross-examination of autopsy surgeon to doubt his version regarding seat of injuries as well as cause of death of deceased – Eye witnesses were not having any enmity with accused giving them a motive to falsely implicate him in crime in question – Case is that of a single victim and a single accused and as such theory of false implication does not require consideration – Evidence on record clearly establishes that it was accused who committed murder of deceased – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 10, 17, 19, 20 and 21)
Ram Ashrit Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 942; Balraje alias Trimbak Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364; Masalti Vs. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1965 SC 202; Harbans Kaur Vs. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 195; Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 – Relied.
State of Haryana Vs. Prabhu, AIR 1979 SC 1019; Gurdip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1151 – Distinguished.
A. M. Badar, J.—By this appeal, appellant/ convicted accused is challenging the Judgment and order dated 13.01.2014 and 16.01.2014 respectively passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Patna City, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 258 of 2012, thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous impreisonment for two years. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in his original capacity as “an accused”.
2. Facts in brief leading to the prosecution of the accused gathered from the police report can be summarized thus:—
(a) First Informant, Rameshwar Manjhi (P.W.2) is resident of village Mudera falling under jurisdiction of Police Station Fatuha, District Patna. His sister is married to P.W. 3 Ramchandar Manjhi resident of village Darshan Chapra falling under Police Station Udwant Nagar of District Bhojpur, Ara. Dinesh Manjhi (since deceased) was uncle of P.W. 3 Ramchandar Manjhi. They both, on 27.10.2011 had gone to the house of First Informant, Rameshwar Manjhi (P.W. 2) at village Mudera. At about 7 P.M. of that day i.e. 27.10.2011, Dinesh Manjhi (since deceased) accompanied by his nephew P.W. 3 Ramchandar Manjhi and P.W.2 Rameshwar Manjhi were going for easing themselves to the open area at the western side of village Mudera. On their way to the open ground, accused/appellant Sanjay Paswan came from the opposite direction, he started questioning Dinesh Manjhi (since deceased) about his whereabouts and details as to whose house is visited by him. Accused Sanjay Paswan then started assaulting him by means of stick. His nephew P.W. 3 Ramchandar Manjhi tried to intervene. However, accused Sanjay Paswan whipped out a knife and gave blows thereof on chest, neck and shoulder joint of Dinesh Manjhi, who resultantly sustained bleeding injuries. Ultimately he was declared dead at the hospital at Fatuha.
(b) The First Information Report of the incident was then lodged by P.W. 2 Rameshwar Manjhi at Police Station Fatuha on 27.10.2011 itself which has resulted in registration of Crime No. 371 of 2011 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. The Investigating Officer visited the spot of the incident. Statement of the witnesses came to be recorded after preparing inquest notes upon inspection of the dead body. The dead body was sent for autopsy. On completion of investigation, ultimately the accused came to be charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(c) The learned trial court had framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses. Autopsy Surgeon, Dr. Pradeep Nandan was examined as P.W. 1. Ext. 1 is the report of postmortem examination. First Informant, Rameshwar Manjhi was examined as P.W. 2. The FIR lodged by him is at Ext. 2. Ramchandar Manhjhi was examined as P.W. 3. Relatives of deceased Dinesh Manjhi, namely, Vishnu Kumar, Meena Devi and Sohagea Devi are examined as P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 respectively. Investigating Officer, Yogendra Prasad was examined as P.W. 6. Inquest notes are at Ext. 4.
4. Defence of the accused was that of total denial. However he did not enter in the defence.
5. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the appellant/accused and to sentencing him as indicated in the opening para of this Judgment.
6. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant at sufficient length of time. By taking us through the impugned Judgment and order as well as record and proceedings, he argued that there was no source of light at the place of the incident in order to enable the prosecution witnesses to identify the accused. It
Balraje alias Trimbak vs. State of Maharashtra
Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab
Harbans Kaur vs. State of Haryana
Eyewitness accounts cannot be disregarded solely due to witness relations; the intent behind injuries determines the charge under IPC, leading to a reduction from murder to culpable homicide.
The judgment establishes that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when relying on eyewitness testimony, which must be consistent and credible to support a conv....
No hard and fast Rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rej....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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.