Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUDHIR SINGH, CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Mahesh Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 241, 310 of 1995
Decided On : 22-07-2022
FARD-BEYAN - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 302/34, Section 147, Section 27 of the Arms Act - The court discussed the fard-beyan of the informant, the belated lodging of the F.I.R., contradiction in oral evidence and medical evidence, non-examination of material witnesses, and previous enmity between the parties. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts, leading to the setting aside of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act for their involvement in a violent incident. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had committed murder and other offenses against the informant and his nephews.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts.
Issues: (i) Proof of fard-beyan (ii) Belated lodging of F.I.R. (iii) Contradiction in evidence (iv) Non-examination of material witnesses (v) Previous enmity between the parties
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts due to various inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside. The appellants were discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.
JUDGMENT :
SUDHIR SINGH, J.
1. Both the appeals are being taken up together as they arise out of the same judgment and order passed by the trial court, by which the appellants have been convicted.
2. Both the appeals are of the year 1995 and have been preferred twenty-seven years ago, against the judgment of conviction dated 16.08.1995 and the order of sentence dated 18.08.1995 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 1986/33 of 1994, arising out of Bikram (Rani Talab) P.S. Case No. 182 of 1984, whereby and whereunder appellant Binod Singh of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 310 of 1995 has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants, namely, Mahesh Singh, Birendra Singh and Ashutosh Singh of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 241 of 1995 have been convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 27 of the Arms Act and all the sentences of the appellants have been directed to run concurrently.
3. By order dated 17.11.2021, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 310 of 1995 against the appellants, namely, Ram Ishwar Singh, Sakaldip Singh and Kashi Singh has abated, as they died during pendency of the appeal. Therefore, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 310 of 1995 is now confined only to appellant, namely, Binod Singh.
4. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant narrated his fardbeyan to one Narmadeshwar Singh (Mukhiya), who recorded it on a piece of paper. On the basis of which, Bikram (Rani Talab) P.S. Case No. 182 of 1984 was registered. The informant in his fard beyan had narrated that on 26.05.1984 at about 9:00 A.M. he alongwith his nephews Maheshwar Singh and Gopal Singh had gone to Rani Talab Lakhpar to purchase wood from one Ramesh Singh and they were talking with him in connection with it. All of a sudden, Ram Ishwar Singh son of Fateh Bahadur Singh and Mahesh Singh son of Chhotu Singh both armed with rifle, Fateh Bahadur Singh son of Ladan Singh and Binod Singh son of Birju Singh both armed with padharia (a sharp cutting weapon) and Birju Singh, Sakaldip Singh, Pradip Singh all sons of Govind Singh, Kashi Singh, who is Bhagina of Sheojee, Birendra singh and Ashutosh Singh both sons of Chhotu Singh, all armed with gun came there. Accused Ram Ishwar Singh exhorted to commit murder and opened a gun-fire at them from his rifle. Upon this, the informant and his two nephews fled away towards west at Lakhpar and the informant and his nephew Maheshwar Singh took shelter in one of the rooms meant for residence of Tandail (class four employees of Irrigation Department to look after canal) and Gopal Singh remained outside. The informant and his nephew Maheshwar Singh closed the door of the Tandail’s room from inside. Accused persons followed them from the wood shop of Ramesh Singh and they began to give push to the door of Tandail’s room, as a result of which one palla of the door with kabja uprooted and got thrown away. Thereupon accused Ram Ishwar Singh, Kashi Singh, Sakaldip Singh and Binod Singh entered into it and the remaining accused persons remained standing at the door and some of them went back to guard and to surround them. Accused persons, who had entered into the room of Tandail, began to cause indiscriminate firing causing injury to Maheshwar Singh. When Maheshwar Singh fell down, then accused Binod Singh caused injury by means of padharia on the neck of Maheshwar Singh. The Informant requested the accused persons to spare the life of his nephew and kill him, a voice came from outside to leave the old man (informant) and kill the nephew (deceased). The accused persons went away when the
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence can lead to the setting aside of a judgment.
The non-examination of the Investigating Officer was fatal to the prosecution's case, and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment establishes that in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious charges like murder, the prosecution must provide consistent and corroborative evidence to support its claims, fa....
Murder – Non-examination of Investigating Officer may cause fatal blow to prosecution.
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof due to significant evidential inconsistencies and procedural errors, leading to the acquittal of the accused-appellants.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances negating any other hypothesis and unerringly pointing out the guilt of the accused.
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
