IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos.628, 648 of 2015
(21.6.2023)
Pramod Rai (in 628)
Chandeshwar Rai (in 648) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondents
(in both)
Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/34—Explosive Substances Act, 1908—Sections 3/4—Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 32—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 313—Murder—Common intention—Life sentence—Prosecution claims to have proved post-mortem report through Advocate's clerks—It will be a travesty of justice if reliance is placed on evidence of such witnesses while taking into consideration sustainability of conviction of a person for commission of offence of murder—No doubt dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence and conviction can be recorded based on dying declaration, but Court must be satisfied that declaration made by deceased was voluntary and reliable—Fardbeyan of deceased was not recorded in presence of a Magistrate or a Doctor—There is no evidence that deceased was in a fit state of mind to make his statement before Police—So-called dying declaration is of no evidentiary value—Appellants missed opportunity to cross-examine Doctor and merely bringing on record injury report and post-mortem report by way of exhibits through an Advocate's clerk is not enough for prosecution to prove prosecution's case about nature of injuries sustained by deceased during his death—Circumstances which are not put to appellant in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, have to be completely excluded from consideration—Non examination of investigating officer or medical expert to prove post-mortem examination is also fatal to prosecution's case—Appellants acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt—Appeals allowed. (Paras 15, 26, 27, 28, 30, to 37)
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 29.05.2015 and the order of sentence dated 09.06.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 377 of 2007/518/13 arising out of Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 56 of 1994, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:—
Appellant Pramod Rai in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 628 of 2015
| Conviction under Section | Imprisonment | Sentence Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine |
| Under Section 302/34 of the IPC | Imprisonment for life | Rs. 25,000/- | RI for Seven months |
| Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act | Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years | Rs. 10,000/- | RI for Six months |
Appellant No. 1 Chandeshwar Rai in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 648 of 2015
| Conviction under Section | Imprisonment | Sentence Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine |
| Under Section 302/34 of the IPC | Imprisonment for life | Rs. 25,000/- | RI for Five months |
Appellant No. 2 Umesh Rai in in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 648 of 2015
| Conviction under Section | Imprisonment | Sentence Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine |
| Under Section 302/34 of the IPC | Imprisonment for life | Rs. 25,000/- | RI for Seven months |
| Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act | Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years | Rs. 10,000/- | RI for Seven months |
2. The fardbeyan of the informant Sitaram Rai (P.W. 6) led to registration of the concerned Sonbarsa, P.S. Case No. 56 of 1994 for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 324, 307 of the IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. As the victim died, Section 302 of the IPC was subsequently incorporated in the FIR under the Court’s Order. The prosecution's case as disclosed in the fardbeyan of the informant recorded at about 11:35 am before the Officer-incharge of the police station is to the effect that in the morning of 02.07.1994, the informant and his son were uprooting seeds for sowing millet. In the nearby land belonging to them, paddy seeds were sown. In the meanwhile, accused Ram Chandra Rai was seen taking his cattle through the middle of their paddy field which was objected to by his son Nagendra Rai (the deceased). He alleged in his fardbeyan that thereafter, the accused Ramchandra Rai abused him and entered into some altercation. Subsequently, at about 11:00 am when the deceased went to his house for bringing food for the labourers and was coming back with the food, the moment he reached near a tree on the road, accused Ramchandra Rai opened fire with his pistol causing fire-arm injury to the deceased sustained his right elbow. Thereafter, Pramod Rai (appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 628 of 2015) hurled a bomb causing injuries in the stomach of the deceased. Ramchandra Rai, again fired a shot with his pistol. Other accused persons namely, Gajendra Rai, Raj Kishore Rai, Chandeshwar Rai (Appellant no. 1 in Cr. App. No. 648 of 2015 and Umesh Rai (Appellant no. 2 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 648 of 2015) were standing there and when Ram Dayal Rai (a cousin of the deceased) attempted to save the deceased; on being exhorted by co-accused Gajendra Rai, Umesh Rai hurled a bomb on him. He, however, managed to escape. The genesis of occurrence, the informant disclosed in his fardbeyan, as some dispute between the parties over drainage of water for which a panchayati was also held nearly 10 days ago. It is also the prosecution’s case that fardbeyan of the deceased Nagendra Prasad Yadav was recorded on 02.07.1994 at about 11:55 PM by one J.K. Singh an Officer of Sonbarsa police station, in Sonbarsa hospital wherein he had stated that Ramchandra Rai had shot at him with an intention to kill him which shot had hit his right hand an
Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab
Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
Dying declaration as fardbeyan without doctor's fitness certificate but recorded in doctor's presence amid 90% burns held reliable and voluntary where no tutoring evident, sufficient for murder convi....
A dying declaration must be trustworthy and corroborated; significant discrepancies in the statement led to acquittal due to reasonable doubt not established by prosecution.
A dying declaration is only valid if the victim was in a fit mental state to give it, which wasn't established; thus, conviction based solely on it is unsafe.
The court relied on oral and documentary evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC.
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.