SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Pat) 581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUDHIR SINGH, ANSHUMAN, JJ.
Shankar Sah, S/o. Khusi Sah & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 374 of 1995 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 1996
Decided On : 20-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP.

The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances negating any other hypothesis and unerringly pointing out the guilt of the accused.

Headnote:

Suppression of Evidence - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 302, 149, 148, 307, 27 of Arms Act - The judgment discusses the suppression of earlier versions of the occurrence, the failure to prove the place and manner of occurrence, and the contradictions between ocular and medical evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted under various sections of the IPC and Arms Act for their involvement in a violent incident resulting in the death of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with weapons, attacked the deceased and others, leading to injuries and death. The case was based on the fardbeyan of the informant and other witnesses.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there were reasonable suspicions regarding the suppression of earlier versions of the occurrence, and the prosecution failed to prove the place and manner of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, leading to the discrediting of the entire case. As a result, the conviction of the appellants was not sustainable in the eyes of the law.

Issues: The issues considered by the court included the reasonable suspicion of suppression of earlier versions of the occurrence, the failure to prove the place of occurrence, and the failure to prove the manner of occurrence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that loose, contradictory, and uncorroborated statements cannot form the basis of conviction in criminal law. It highlighted the need for the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstances negating any other hypothesis and unerringly pointing out the guilt of the accused.

Final Decision: Both the appeals were allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court were set aside. The appellants were discharged from their respective bail bonds.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Vide order dated 14.02.2023, on the basis of report submitted by Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi, the appeal with regard to appellant No.3 Khusi Sah (of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 374 of 1995) has already abated. Hence, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 374 of 1995 subsists only against the remaining appellants.

3. Both the 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.

4. These criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 15.11.1995 and the order of sentence dated 17.11.1995 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.70 of 1993 arising out of Bairgania P.S. case No.55 of 1992, whereby and whereunder the appellants Ram Babu Rai, Ganesh Sah, Hazari Sah, Shambhu Sah, Raghunandan Rai, Ramashrey Sah and Harish Chandra Sah have been convicted under Sections 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’). The appellants Shivdhyan Prasad and Shankar Sah have been convicted under Sections 148, 302 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 148 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 27 of the Arms Ac. The appellants Shivdhyan Prasad and Shankar Sah have further been directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- each to the next of kin of deceased Jagat Narain and in default of paying such compensation they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. The appellants Ram Babu Rai, Ganesh Sah, Harish Chandra Sah, Ramashrey Sah, Raghunandan Sah, Shambhu Sah and Hazari Sah have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 of I.P.C. The appellant Ram Babu Rai has been convicted under Sections 148, 307 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 148 of I.P.C., for 7 years under Section 307 of I.P.C. and for 3 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant Ganesh Sah has also been convicted under Sections 148, 307 of I.P.C. and Section 302 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 148 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 307 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant Harish Chandra Sah has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The appellants Ramashrey Sah, Raghunandan Sah, Shambhu Sah and Hazari Sah have also been convicted under Section 148 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 148 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants Ram Babu Rai and Ganesh Sah have also been directed to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- to the informant and in default of such compensation, they have been directed to undergo another rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

5. The prosecution case in brief, as per the fardbeyan of informant Ram Bahadur Prasad (P.W.1) recorded in Bairgania State Dispensary on 21.09.1992 at 9:00 p.m. by the S.I. Sitaram Kumar (P.W.9) is that the informant was returning from Marpa village Market (Hatiya) alongwith the deceased Jagat Narain Prasad, Puran Prasad Sahi (P.W.4), Raj Kumar Sah (P.W.2), Laxman Prasad (P.W.3) and Girdhari Sah (P.W.6) to his village Jamua and in that course at about 05:15 p.m. when they were near the Primary Health Centre situate north of the village Jamua, the accused persons came there from Jamua Bazar sid

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top