Back
SUDHIR SINGH and ANSHUMAN, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.670, 538 of 2015
(13.2.2023)
Mithilesh Singh (in 670)
Dhanesh Singh (in 538) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
(in all)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 342 – Murder and wrongful restraint – Common object – Life sentence and fine of Rs.10,000/- awarded – Testimony of a person who is an eye witness to the incident, must not be dangling or self-contradictory – In criminal law, loose, contradictory and uncorroborated statements cannot be relied upon, much less than forming basis of conviction – Statement of an eye witness must be free from blemish and devoid of any ambiguity, uncertainty and loopholes – In present case, there are material inconsistencies in testimony of informant and same also stands contradicted by testimony of other witnesses – There is no specific mention as to whether any arms were recovered from house of accused or not – There is no mention of finding any blood marks on alleged place of occurrence – Such non-recovery of any weapon or other incriminating article coupled with absence of any medical opinion as to nature of weapon used in alleged occurrence casts dark clouds of suspicion on case of prosecution – In order to convict accused, in addition to establishing mens rea and actus reus, prosecution also has onus to establish causality element – It cannot be said with certainty that it is appellants only that have caused death of deceased – In absence of such live causative link, taking any contrary view in backdrop of facts of this case will be against principles of fairness and justice – There is no concrete evidence to suggest presence of appellants at place of occurrence at the time of alleged incident – Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Appeals allowed. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15)
Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is ultimate quest – In a case where no direct evidence is available, onus lies on prosecution to prove its case by establishing that chain of circumstantial evidences is so connected together that they lead to only one inference, i.e. guilt of the accused – Any hiatus in connecting chain of circumstances will prove to be fatal for prosecution. (Para 13)
Sudhir Singh, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The aforementioned criminal appeals arise out of same judgment of conviction and order of sentence, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2015 and the order of sentence dated 09.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Danapur, Patna in Sessions Trial No.230 of 2010 arising out of Naubatpur P.S. case No.98 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 871 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘I.P.C.’) and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- each for offences under sections 302/149 of the I.P.C. and they have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months for offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C., one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and three months rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 342 of the I.P.C. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
4. The prosecution’s case, as per the fardbeyan of informant Geeta Devi recorded by S.I. Shri R.D. Pandey of Naubatpur P.S. on 24.03.2008 at 16:00 hours at the house of the informant, in short, is that on the same day at about 1:00 p.m. while the informant’s son namely Pannu @ Rakesh Kumar was going to poultry farm from his house after taking meal, in course thereof when Pannu @ Rakesh Kumar reached in front of the house of Mithilesh Singh, in the meantime co-villagers, namely, Mithilesh Singh, Dhanesh Singh, Amresh Kumar @ Pintu, Tullu @ Rakesh Kumar and Surendra Singh, variously armed with country made pistols, surrounded the informant’s son and thereupon the accused Suresh Singh caught hold of him and the accused Mithilesh Singh opened fire at him and got him wounded. It is further alleged that the family members of the informant took her son to Patna for better treatment. The cause of occurrence has been stated to be dispute arising out of post panchayat election.
5. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan of informant Geeta Devi, an F.I.R. bearing Naubatpur P.S. case No.98 of 2008 was drawn up against five accused persons. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the two accused persons showing the accused Suresh Singh as dead and keeping the investigation pending against the rest others, namely, Amresh Singh @ Pintu, Rakesh @ Tullu and Umesh Singh. Then learned A.C.J.M., Danapur after taking cognizance against the above named two accused persons on 28.01.2010 committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereupon, charges were framed against the appellants to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses, namely, Geeta Devi (P.W.1-informant), Shashi Devi (P.W.2), Munni Devi (P.W.3), Dr. Arbind Kumar Singh (P.W.4), Krishna Murari Sharma (P.W.5), Rakesh Kumar (P.W.6), Tej Narain Vishwas (P.W.7) Investigating Officer of the case, Dr. Girish Kumar Sharan (P.W.8) and Bhavesh Kumar Dinkar (P.W.9). In support of its case, the prosecution has produced exhibits as Ext.2 (postmortem report), Ext.1/3 (fardbeyan of informant Geeta Devi), Ext.3 (formal F.I.R.), Ext.4 (Inquest report). The defence has also produced exhibits as Ext.A (signature of S.I. R.D. Pandey on F.I.R.), Ext.A/1 (signature of witness Ranju Devi), Ext.D (signature of Mithilesh Singh on complaint petition), Ext.C (true copy of final report). Ext.B (formal F.I.R. of Naubatpur P.S. case No.97/2008).
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the judgment of conviction suffers from several infirmities that have been overlooked by the learned trial court and therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in t
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, emphasizing the importance of trustworthy evide....
The prosecution failed to substantiate charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions and doubts in the evidence can lead to the f....
The need for reliable witness testimonies and corroborating evidence, especially in the absence of independent witnesses, to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt; suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction.
Point of Law : When there are eyewitnesses to prove the charge, failure on the part of the prosecution to establish every link in the chain of circumstance would become irrelevant.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
