Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUDHIR SINGH and CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 944 of 2014 with 39, 74, 114, 127, 154, 166 and 169 of 2015
(3.10.2023)
Khusboo Kumari (in 944)
Vikky Singh (39)
Naresh Burnwal @ Naresh Pd. Burnwal (in 74)
Ram Pravesh Singh @ Burbha (in 114)
Basant Singh (in 127)
Jitu Singh @ Jitendra Singh @ Amarjeet Kumar @ Suraj Singh (in 154)
Vinay Singh (in 166)
Ranjay Singh @ Debu Singh @ Ganesh Singh (in 169)
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
Indian Evidence Act, 1872–Section 65 B–Admissibility of electronic evidence–the intent behind the provisions contained in Section 65-B is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form as these are more susceptible to tampering–so, inorder to ensure the source and authenticity of the electronic record produced before a Court, Section 65-B (4) mandates a certificate from the person responsible for the operation of the relevant device because failure to do so could result in miscarriage of justice in view of the law, settled by the Apex Court in (2022) 7 SCC 581, the call details of the appellants cannot be admitted in evidence as the same has not been accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act. (Para 12)
Indian Penal Code, 1860–Section 302–The eye witnesses cannot have been reasonably able to see or identify the appellants when the appellants approached them by flashing a light on their car–further more, the I.Os. in the present case produced no evidence regarding the source of identification or any source of light near the place of occurrence ” therefore, the claim of identification of the appellants by P.W. 4 in the case where the source of light becomes doubtful makes the T.I. Parade exhibits flaws arising from the breach of established guidelines, it raises doubt regarding the integrity of the entire T.I. parade and the prosecution case the identification of the articles made in the T.I. Parade is doubtful, as the materials were not sealed–prosecution has not brought on record any FSL report in relation to the seized blood so as to prove the missing causative link–as held by the H'ble Apex Court, non-production of the FSL report by the prosecution is fatal as in absence thereof it is not possible to ascertain as to whether the blood found was human blood and that too of the blood group of the deceased–recovery of two country made pistols two 315 bore live cartriges is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants regarding the commission of the offence alleged–moreover, there was no attempt made by the prosecution to obtain the opinion of a ballistic expert to ascertain whether the bullet have been fired from the recovered weapon–prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants–conviction set aside. (Paras 13, 14 to 17)
(2020) 7 SCC 1, (2014) 10 SCC 473, (2022) 7 SCC 581, (2008) 7 SCC 475, (2003) 12 SCC 485, (1994) 4 SCC 365, (2011) 6 SCC 279, (1981) 2 SCC 166, 1962 SCC Online SC 42, (2023) 7 SCC 727–Referred.
Sudhir Singh, J. – In this batch of appeal, inadvertently the order dated 15.09.2023 has wrongly been typed as Serial No.6 and the order dated 19.09.2023 as Serial No.4, which require correction, therefore, the order dated 15.09.2023 be read as Serial No.4 and the order dated 19.09.2023 as Serial No.5.
2. By order dated 15.09.2023 passed in the present batch of appeals, Mr. Anil Singh, learned advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
3. As per the F.I.R., the prosecution case in brief is that on the evening of 25th March 2012, Suman Barnwal, the wife of Naresh Barnwal (informant-cum-appellant) along with her husband and family members was travelling from Rajgir to Jamui, in between 8-9 pm, she was shot dead near Lakhisarai road and thereby, formal first information report (Exhibit 6) was registered.
4. The prosecution, in course of trial, contended that the murder was committed by the appellant Naresh Barnwal in conspiracy with the appellants Jitu Singh @ Jitendra Singh @ Amarjeet Singh @ Suraj Singh, Vikky Singh @ Ravi @ Guddu Singh @ Munna, Ram Pravesh Singh @ Burbha, Basant Singh, Vinay Singh, Ranjay Singh @ Debu Singh @ Ganesh Singh and Khusboo Kumari. Sri Krishna Kumar Agrawal, Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Lakhisarai in Sessions Trial No. 535/2012, arising out of Halsi P.S. case No. 25/2012, G.R. No. 317/2012, after the trial, by the judgment of conviction dated 10.12.2014 and order of sentence dated 11.12.2014, all the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Section 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the I.P.C.’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. Appellants Vikky Singh @ Ravi @ Guddu Singh @ Munna and Jitu Singh @ Jitendra Singh @ Amarjeet Kumar @ Suraj Singh have been convicted under Section 379 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three-three years. Appellants Jitu Singh @ Jitendra Singh @ Amarjeet Kumar @ Suraj Singh, Basant Singh and Ranjay Singh @ Debu Singh @ Ganesh Singh have been convicted for the offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three-three years. Appellants Vikky Singh @ Ravi @ Guddu Singh @ Munna and Jitu Singh @ Jitendra Singh @ Amarjeet Singh @ Suraj Singh have also been convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five-five years and a fine of Rs. 500/- each. All the sentences so imposed on the appellants shall run concurrently.
5. Coming to the first information report registered on the statement of appellant Naresh Barnwal, the facts narrated therein in brief were that he along with his wife Suman Devi (deceased), brother-in-law Rajesh Baranwal @ Pappu, Bhabhi of his wife with her children were going from his Zen Maruti Car bearing No. JH- 10A-9329 from Gaya to Jamui via Rajgir, Biharsharif and Sheikhpura and in the night of 25.3.2012 at about 8 p.m., when they reached near Tarhari village within Halsi Police Station of Lakhisarai district, subsequently 8-10 unknown persons by flashing torch directed them to stop the vehicle. As soon as the vehicle came to a halt, two of the unknown individuals brandishing pistols, one in the front seat and the other in the rear, forcibly entered the car. The rest of the assailants warned against raising an alarm. Those who boarded the vehicle instructed Naresh to drive, and after ten steps, they ordered a left turn. Approximately a kilometre later, they forced the vehicle to stop again. They dragged Suman Devi out of the car and threw her onto the road, after which they shot her. The two assailants also looted jewellery, mobile phones, money, and clothes, etc. and fled away. With the assistance of his brother-in-law, Naresh rushed his injured wife to Sikandara Hospital and then to Sadar Hospital in Jamui. Unfortunately, Suman Devi succumbed to her injuries during treatment. The assailants, who had boarded the vehicle, verb
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to inadequate procedural adherence and unreliable evidence.
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
Conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness if credible, but significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and flaws in the T.I. Parade, lack of evidence, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can undermine the prosecuti....
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to reliance on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from interested parties and lack of independent evidence.
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
