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) 820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI and CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 507, 484 of 2018
(1.9.2023)
Manoj Rai & Anr. (in 507)
Bachha Rai & Anr. (in 484) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants :M/s S. K. Lal, Advocate, Rudal Singh(in 507); Amarnath Singh, Sr. Adv., Alok Kumar Alok (in 484).
For the Respondent: Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP (in both)
For the Informant : Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi (in both)

Headnote:

Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – When eye witnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards accused, it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield real culprit and rope in innocent persons – Truth or otherwise of evidence has to be weighed pragmatically – Court would be required to meticulously analyze evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically deposed towards accused – But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, version given by witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same – Close scrutiny of evidence of such type of witnesses is required to be done and if their evidence is found to be trustworthy, same can be accepted. (Para 28)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – There are several material contradictions in depositions of different prosecution witnesses who are claiming to be an eye-witness of occurrence – All eye-witnesses specifically deposed that police visited place of occurrence and also saw place where blood was spread over and seized empty cartridges, but, same fact was denied by I/O – It is bounden duty of Court to ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided at all costs and benefit of doubt be given to accused – Prosecution failed to establish guilt of appellants-accused beyond reasonable doubts – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence quashed and set aside – Appeals allowed. (Paras 32, 35, 37, 38 and 39)

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J. – Heard learned counsel, Mr. S. K. Lal assisted by Mr. Rudal Singh, appearing for the appellants-accused in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 507 of 2018 and learned senior counsel, Mr. Amarnath Singh assisted by Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, appearing for the appellants-accused in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 484 of 2018 and learned APP, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, appearing for the State as well as learned counsel, Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. Both the above-mentioned appeals were preferred challenging the judgment and order of sentence dated 09.03.2018 and 14.03.2018 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Vaishali at Hajipur, convicting appellants-accused in Sessions Trial No. 247 of 2016 arising out of Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 34 of 2015, directing abovenamed appellants/accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and imposed fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 04 (four) months. A separate conviction was recorded, under Section 404/34 of the IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/- where, in default of paying fine, further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Appellant No.1, namely, Manoj Rai in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 507 of 2018 and Appellant No.2, namely, Bipin Rai in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 484 of 2018, further, separately sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, where, in default of paying fine, they had to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months. The fine amount, as mentioned above, were directed to pay to the father of the victim. All sentences as recorded above were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The brief of the prosecution case as it springs from the written information of the informant (PW-6), namely, Binda Rai, aged about 45 years, son of Baidhnath Rai, which was recorded by the S.I., Sarfaraz Ahmad, on 19.04.2015 at 0530 Hrs that the informant (PW-6) on 19.04.2015, while, going to Nawada Kala along with his son Pankaj Rai, aged about 24 years by his TVS Apache Motorcycle, having registration no. BR31N 6476, and so when they reached at about 04:00 PM, near Kapileshwar Chowk, he asked his son to stop motorcycle, as he had to attend the call of nature. The said motorcycle was stopped near a tea stall. Next to the moment, he answered the call of nature, he heard public alarm at Kapileshwar Chowk including alarm raised by his son. On suspicion, he reached at tea stall at Kapileshwar Chowk, he found that Manoj Rai, aged about 35 years, S/o Kailash Rai and Bipin Rai aged about 30 years, S/o Bachha Rai, both residents of Diwan Tok. Ashok Rai @ Buchhu Rai, aged about 35 years, S/o Sakaldev Rai, resident of Saraipur, P.S. Ganga Bridge, District – Vaishali, were surrounding his son Pankaj Rai and pointed gun to him and Bachha Rai, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Jagdeo Rai, Kailash Rai, aged about 60 years, S/o Jugeshwar Rai, resident of Diwan Tok, P.S. Ganga Bride, District – Vaishali, were taking his on sickle and were saying that today they will end the game of 'Pankajwa' (son of informant), as he disturbed them a lot, seeing the situation, informant raised alarm and tried to save his son, but all the accused persons including above-named appellants-accused, pushed him to a nearby ditch and thereafter, Manoj Rai and Bipin Rai (both the appellants-accused), Ashok Rai @ Buchhu Rai, opened indiscriminate firing upon his son, Pankaj Rai, consequent upon his son after going for a short distance, while making an attempt to save him fell down to the ground and subsequently, Bachha Rai and Kailash Rai (both appellants-accused) started to cut his son by sickle. He raised alarm and consequent upon the nearby public started to gather over there, resultantly, accused persons including appellants-accused, ran away with motorcycle of his son and his mobile having SIM No. 7250162108 by waiv

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