2022 Supreme(Pat) 788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH and HARISH KUMAR, JJ.
Death Reference No.5 of 2021 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 312,
350, 351 of 2021
(13.7.2022)
State of Bihar (in 5)
Chhathu Pasi @ Chhathu
Chaudhary (in 312)
Laljhari Devi @ Laljhari
& Ors. (in 350)
Nagina Pasi & Ors. (in 351) ... Petitioners
vs.
Chhathu Pasi & Ors. (in 5)
State of Bihar (in 312,
350, 351) ... Respondents

Headnote:

Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 – Sections 30(a) and 34(a)(b)(i) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 272, 273 and 308 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 207 – Hooch tragedy – Multiple deaths – Recovery of illicit liquor – Death sentence – Though prosecution has tried to make out a case that 19 persons died due to consumption of poisonous liquor, it neither brought on record name of deceased persons nor their post-mortem reports – FIR was not instituted on the basis of first information received by S.H.O. regarding commission of a cognizable offence, but same was also instituted after an inordinate and unexplained delay and that too after completing a major part of investigation – Such act of police gives rise to possibility of concoction of evidence by prosecution – There is no oral evidence regarding articles seized from houses of accused-appellants – Seizure lists prepared by informant in themselves cannot be treated to be proof of their contents – Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution in respect of searches and seizures do not appear to be reliable – They are not sure about articles recovered from different houses alleged to have been raided by police officials – Two so-called independent witnesses to seizures were not examined by prosecution – FSL report was never supplied to accused-appellants during trial – No reliance can be placed on FSL report, which was not provided to accused-appellants at any stage of trial for arriving at a conclusion of guilt against accused-appellants – Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution are all police personnel, but they are not consistent – They have contradicted each other in material particular – Except police officials no independent witness has been examined – Prosecution miserably failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside and Death Reference rejected. (Paras 65, 71, 76, 77, 80, 87, 96, 100, 102, 103, 105, 118 and 120)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 207 read with Section 173(5) – Supply of documents to accused – FSL report is nothing but a document within meaning of Cr.P.C. – Since prosecution is relying on the same and has used it against appellants, it was incumbent upon it to furnish a copy of same to accused-appellants not only in terms of Section 207 read with Section 173(5) of Cr.P.C but also to uphold right of accused a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India – Even if accused-appellants did not demand a copy of FSL report when same was produced by Investigating Officer in a sealed cover while he was deposing before Court, it was duty of court to ensure that a copy of report of FSL be supplied to accused persons in advance so that they may go through the same and prepare their defence – Accused has right to a free and fair trial which flows from Article 21 of Constitution of India – Procedural law for criminal trial as contained in Cr.P.C is meant to ensure free and fair trial – On receipt of police report and accompanying documents by virtue of Section 207 of Cr.P.C, Magistrate is obliged to furnish copies of each of statements and documents to accused. (Paras 82, 83 and 85)

Administration of Justice – Though heuristics are useful instrument of arriving at conclusions, deployment of heuristics are also coloured by associative and other biases and prejudices leading to overestimation or underestimation of evidence – Judges are supposed to be persons with skills and expertise in field of justice dispensation – Lot of time and money is expended by State to train them to dispense justice and not mere passing of orders yet appreciation of evidence leaves lot to be desired – Criminal trials involve complex process of collation and analysis of countless evidences and requires intensive attention which is an exclusive function of Trial Judges – Trial Judges, who are supposed to be persons trained and skilled to apply themselves to evidences have repeatedly failed criminal justice system and have allowed their judgments clouded by irrelevant factors – Trial Judges cannot resort to heuristics to resolve problems of complex factual aspects of criminal trial and randomly apply law to facts in a completely unstructured manner which would lead to travesty of justice – They have duty to protect rights of accused and interests of public in administration of criminal justice – They have responsibility to hold trial in appropriate manner in order to promote just determination of trial which is prime object of a criminal trial – They are required to conduct each trial with unbiased approach – They are required to give each case an independent treatment and final determination should be based on particular facts of that case and relevant laws. (Paras 123, 125, 127, 128 and 129)