Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUDHIR SINGH, CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Ram Bilas Sharma S/o Ishwar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 408 of 1995
Decided On : 08-07-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 34, Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act - The court discussed the admissibility of related/partisan witnesses' testimonies, false implication due to previous enmity, establishment of the place of occurrence, and the admissibility of the informant's statement. The court relied on the principle that related witnesses' evidence can be relied upon if consistent and true, and the previous enmity can also be the motive behind the occurrence. The court found that the prosecution established the place of occurrence beyond doubt and deemed the informant's statement admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for hurling a bomb at the deceased, resulting in his death. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of related witnesses and the informant's statement regarding the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the related witnesses' testimonies admissible and reliable, rejected the defense's claim of false implication due to previous enmity, established the place of occurrence beyond doubt, and deemed the informant's statement admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: 1. Admissibility of related/partisan witnesses' testimonies 2. False implication due to previous enmity 3. Establishment of the place of occurrence 4. Admissibility of the informant's statement
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that related witnesses' evidence can be relied upon if consistent and true, and the previous enmity can also be the motive behind the occurrence. The court found that the prosecution established the place of occurrence beyond doubt and deemed the informant's statement admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and dismissed the appeal.
JUDGMENT :
SUDHIR SINGH, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant against the judgment and order dated 31-10-1995, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Banka, in Sessions Trial No. 575 of 1993, arising out of Rajoun P.S. Case No. 198 of 1992 whereby and whereunder the appellant, namely, Ram Bilas Sharma and one Etwari Sharma having been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal as against Etwari Sharma got abated by order dated 11.03.2022, passed in this criminal appeal, as he died during pendency of this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is now surviving only against the sole appellant, namely, Ram Bilas Sharma.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 7.30 A.M. on 21-12-1992 at Rajoun Hospital, wherein he stated that the informant has got two brothers and all three brothers including the informant used to live separately. One of the brothers, namely, Amik Sharma (deceased) used to live in his house constructed near the pond (Pokhar) situated in the west of the village. On 21-12-1992 at 5.00 A.M. the informant hearing some alarm from pond side, ran towards the pond and saw his brother Amik Sharma lying injured in north to his house and his wife was taking care of him. The injured Amik Sharma told the informant that while he was returning to his house after urinating, the accused Ram Bilas Sharma (appellant) and Etwari Sharma having bombs in their hands reached there and one bomb was thrown by Ram Bilas Sharma (appellant) which injured him (Amik Sharma). As per the prosecution, the palm, scrotum and both legs of Amik Sharma were injured. On hearing the sound of explosion of bomb, one Doman Sharma and Murari Sharma along with some villagers also came there and with their help, the informant took the injured to Rajoun State Dispensary where the injured succumbed to the injuries. Disclosing the motive behind the occurrence, it is stated in the fardbeyan that there was a dispute since earlier with the accused persons relating to the land of Bajrang Bali. The accused persons were demanding some more land on which the informant was not agreed and for the said reason, the accused persons with intent to commit murder of the deceased, hurled bomb upon him. On the basis of fardbeyan, a formal F.I.R. was drawn up and Rajoun P.S. Case No. 198 of 1992 was registered against the appellant and Etwari Sharma under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.
3. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons and cognizance was taken by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section ¾ of the Explosive Substances Act. Thereupon, they were put to trial.
4. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses viz. PW-7 is the informant, PWs. 1 & 2 are his parents, PW-3 is informant’s wife, PW-5 is wife of the deceased, PWs. 4, 8 & 9 are witnesses on seizure lists. PW-6 is a witness on Inquest report. PW-10 is the doctor and PW-11 is the Investigating Officer. The documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution are fardbeyan (Ext.2), endorsement and signature of PW-11 on Ext.2 (Ext.3), formal F.I.R. (Ext.4). Inquest report (Ext.5), seizure list with regard to blood stained soil (Ext.6/1), Sanction order of the District Magistrate for prosecution under Explosive Substances Act (Ext.7) and charge sheet (Ext.8). Different signatures are Ext.1 series. Exts.1 & 1/1 are signatures of PW-4 on Exts.5 & 6 respectively, Ext.½ is signature of PW-6 on Ext.5, Ext.1/3 is signature of PW-2 on Ext.2, Exts.¼ and 1/5 are signatures of PWs. 8 & 9 respectively on Ext.6/1, Exts.1/6 to 1/9 and 1/11 are signatures of PW-11 on Exts
AI
Related witnesses' evidence can be relied upon if consistent and true, and the previous enmity can also be the motive behind the occurrence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and material contradictions in evidence can render ey....
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
Murder – Conviction on the basis of conjectures and surmises is fatal for justice and fairness.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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
