Uma Shankar Singh vs State of Bihar - 2022 Supreme(Pat) 760

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Pat) 760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
A. M. BADAR and RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
Cri. Appeal (DB) No.793 of 2014
(4.7.2022)
Uma Shankar Singh ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellant : M/s Anil Kumar Singh, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Sanjay Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Mishra.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Twin murder – Life sentence – Injuries were on vital part of human body – Post-mortem examination of dead bodies proved that deceased husband and wife died homicidal death – Competency of child witness depends on his capacity and intelligence – His understanding of difference between truth and falsehood as well as duty to tell truth affirms his competency to depose – Decision on competency of child witness to testify primarily rests on decision of Trial Court who has opportunity to see child witness, to notice his manner and appearance before Court as well as his way of answering questions put to him by parties – In case in hand, child witnesses have answered questions put to them by prosecutors as well as defence in very clear and cogent manner – While in dock, both these natural witnesses to incident had exhibited intellectual capacity to understand each and every questions put to them by both parties – Both of them have given rational answers to those questions – Only because Trial Court had not asked some preliminary questions to these witnesses their otherwise truthful, clear and cogent evidence cannot be jettisoned – There is nothing in cross-examination of both these witnesses to suggest that these witnesses are tutored witnesses and therefore they are deposing a lie against accused – Their evidence is conspicuously silent as to motive if any with them to falsely implicate accused in horrid murder of their brother and their sister-in-law – Gruesome incident which they witnessed, as such, must be imprinted in their memory so as to enable them to reiterate the same before Trial Court during course of their evidence – Version of defence witnesses is not sufficient to doubt otherwise truthful prosecution case – Same was rightly rejected by Trial Court – Prosecution has proved commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC by accused – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 9, 24, 29, 30 and 31 )
Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Over insistence on witnesses having no relation with victims often results in criminal justice going away – When any incident happens in a dwelling house most natural witnesses would be inmates of that house – It is unpragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and insist on outsiders who would not have even seen any thing – If Court has discerned from evidence or even from investigation records that some other independent person has witnessed any event connecting incident in question then there is justification for making adverse comments against non-examination of such person as prosecution witness – Otherwise, merely on surmises Court should not castigate a prosecution for not examining other persons of locality as prosecution witnesses – Prosecution can be expected to examine only those who have witnessed events and not those who have not seen it though neighbourhood may be replete with other residents also. (Para 14)

A. M. Badar, J.—By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused Uma Shankar Singh is challenging the judgment and order dated 26.02.2014 and 03.03.2014 respectively, passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jehanabad, in Sessions Trial No.236 of 2012/99 of 2013 thereby convicted him of the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand). In default of payment of fine he is directed to undergo imprisonment for six months. 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, projected from the police report, can be summarized thus:

(A) It is case of the prosecution that the accused had committed twin murder i.e., of Pankaj Kumar and Rubi Devi in their residential house in the night intervening 27.11.2010 and 28.11.2010 by assaulting them by means of a wooden stick and the ‘Khanti’- a heavy weapon made of iron used for digging the soil.

(B) It is case of the prosecution that Pankaj Kumar and his wife Rubi Devi (since deceased) used to reside at village East Utta falling under jurisdiction of Police Station- Jehanabad, along with their family members. There family was comprising of mother of Pankaj Kumar, namely, PW 2 Gita Devi, his sisters namely, PW 1 Puja Kumari and PW 3 Soni Devi as well as his brother Chandan Kumar.

(C) It is averred that the accused, who was earlier working as a Police Constable, was having relations with PW 2 Gita Devi – widow of Kallu Ram and, therefore, he used to visit the house of the prosecuting party and used to stay there. On the day of the incident, he quarrel with PW 2 Gita Devi. Subsequently, Gita Devi had left for Patna. Her another son PW 4 Chandan Kumar was also not present at the house. At the time of the incident, in the night hours, Pankaj Kumar along with his wife Rubi Devi and his sisters were sleeping in their house comprising of two rooms. In the first room of their house they used to do the business of selling eatables and tea. At about 1:00 AM of that night intervening 27.11.2010 and 28.11.2010, the accused entered in their house with a wooden stick in his hand and questioned PW 3 Soni Kumari as to whereabouts of her mother i.e., PW 2 Gita Devi. She informed that Gita Devi had gone to Patna. Thereupon, the accused told her to be ready for suffering beating at his hands. The accused then initially started beating Pankaj Kumar and his wife Rubi Devi who were sleeping in that room by means of wooden stick held by him. He then assaulted them by means of ‘iron Khanti’. When he attempted to assault PW 3 Soni Kumari, aged about 13 years, and her sister PW 1 Puja Kumari, aged about seven years, both of them ran away from the backdoor of the house and took shelter in the vicinity. In the morning hours of 28.11.2010, Soni Kumari lodged report of the incident with PW 6 Ranjeet Ray, Police Station Officer, Jehanabad, on the spot of the occurrence itself and accordingly Crime No.647 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered with Police Station Jehanabad, against the accused.

(D) The routine investigation is followed. After taking inquest notes, the dead bodies were sent for autopsy and PW 7 Dr. Awinashi Sharan of the Sadar Hospital, Jehanabad, conducted post mortem examination of the dead bodies at Sadar Hospital, Jehanabad, on 28.11.2010 itself. The spot of the incident came to be inspected by PW 6 Ranjeet Rai, the Investigator, and weapon of the offence, i.e., ‘Khanti’, found on the spot came to be seized by preparing the seizure memo. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on completion of routine investigation, the accused came to be charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(E) The learned trial Court framed and explained the char