Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARVIND SRIVASTAVA and SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 108, 110 and 129 of 1996
(25.1.2024)
Lal Baboo Singh (in 108)
Shivjee Singh (in 110)
Bidya Sagar Singh (in 129) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
(in all)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374 – Criminal appeal – Appellate Court is empowered to reappreciate entire evidence on record for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether accused persons or any of them had committed any offence or not – If impugned judgment and order is ultimately found to be clearly unreasonable and perverse then such judgment and order can be set aside by Appellate Court. (Para 21)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Intention is a matter of inference to be drawn from proved circumstances of case – Before court can convict a person under Section 302, read with Section 34 of I.P.C., it should come to a definite conclusion that said person had prior concert with one or more other persons, named or unnamed, for committing said offence – Court must necessarily have regard to nature of weapon used, part of body injured, extent of injury, degree of force used in causing injury, manner of attack, circumstances preceding and attendant on attack – Plan may also develop on spot during course of commission of offence; but crucial circumstance is that plan must precede act constituting offence. (Paras 37 and 38)
Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Evidence of interested witnesses has to be examined with great care and caution to obviate possibility of false implication or over-implication – In cases involving group enmities, it is not unusual to rope in persons other than who were actually involved – In such a case, Court should guard against danger of convicting innocent persons and scrutinize evidence carefully and if doubt arises, benefit should be given to accused. (Para 42)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 341 – Murder and wrongful restraint – Common intention – Life sentence – Prosecution witnesses claiming to be eye witness of occurrence are related to each other with whom accused persons have enmity for land dispute – At the time of preparing inquest report, I.O. had not found any injury on body of deceased – Motive is not sine qua non for causing murder – Motive cannot be assumed – Motive which induces a man to do any particular act is known to him and him alone – It is action that is apparent and act of accused can be proved by direct evidences or circumstantial evidence – Present case rests on direct evidence – Previous enmity is a double-edged sword – On one hand, it provides motive to crime and on other hand, there is possibility of false implication – Eye witnesses belong to victim and they can be stamped as interested witness – Considering facts particularly nature and type of injury inflicted on deceased, use of weapon in assault, conduct of accused, object and purpose behind occurrence, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond shadow of doubt with respect to common intention of appellants to murder deceased – Case does not fall within clause thirdly of Section 300 of I.P.C. and offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. – Conviction modified and sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Paras 33, 39, 43, 44, 48, 50 and 51)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – If single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, requirements of clause thirdly to Section 300 of I.P.C., are fulfilled and offence would be murder – Where only a single injury is inflicted by accused and circumstances justify that he only intended a simple injury would lead to interference of 'guilty knowledge' then offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. (Para 47)
Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—The aforesaid three appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State.
3. All accused persons/appellants, namely, Lal Baboo Singh, Shivjee Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh along with accused Shyamdeo Singh were tried by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 1995 arising out of Desari P.S. Case No. 25 of 1994 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused/appellant Vidya Sagar Singh was also charged and tried under the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. By the judgment and order dated 19.02.1996, the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur convicted all the accused persons including the appellants, namely, Lal Baboo Singh, Shivjee Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused/appellant Vidya Sagar Singh was also held guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C. They have been sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment.
5. Accused Shyamdeo Singh was convicted also under Section 341 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and sentences passed against him under Sections 341 and 302/34 of the I.P.C. will run concurrently.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of their conviction and sentence, the convicted persons, namely, Shyamdeo Singh, Lal Baboo Singh, Shivjee Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh preferred separate appeal bearing Cr. Appeal (DB) No.137 of 1996, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 108 of 1996, Cr. Appeal (DB) No.110 of 1996 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No.129 of 1996 respectively. On account of death of accused Shyamdeo Singh, his appeal being Cr.Appeal (DB) No.137 of 1996 stood abated vide order dated 05.12.2023.
7. Since the above captioned appeals arise out of common factual matrix and impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 19.02.1996, we are disposing them by this common judgment.
8. The prosecution case, in brief is that on 09.03.1994 at about 08:00 p.m. the informant Umesh Prasad Singh (PW-7) gave his fardbeyan recorded by Sh. B.N. Singh (PW-9) Officer-in-Charge, Desari Police Station alleging that on that date i.e. 09.03.1994 at about 6:30 p.m. on his return after attending call of nature, when he reached near his bathan at about 06:30 p.m. then he heard the groaning sound (ghighiyana) of his father Nathuni Singh (deceased), aged about 60 years. Thereafter the informant moved ahead to see his father and saw that in the sahan in front of his bathan, accused Shyamdeo Singh had caught hold of the informant’s father Nathuni Singh and Vidya Sagar Singh assaulted his father with the hura (end portion) of lathi. Lal Baboo Singh and Shivjee Singh were hurling their farsa and bhala respectively and were giving threat to kill anyone who would come to save him. On raising hulla, tea shopkeeper Chhabila Singh (PW-3), Harishankar Singh (PW-1) and Yogeshwar Singh reached on the spot. Then all four accused persons fled away after committing assault. When the informant and witnesses came near the victim, they saw him to be dead. In his fardbeyan, the informant has disclosed that there was a land dispute between them and earlier the accused persons had committed mar-pit on 06.02.1994 for which a case was registered in the police station and since then they had threatened to assault and commit murder. Harishankar Singh (PW-1) and Satyanarain Singh (PW-4) had also signed as witnesses on the fardbeyan. The informant alleged that all the accused persons due to previous enmity caught hold his father Nathuni Singh and committed murder by hura of lathi.
9. On the basis of the said fardbeyan (Ext.5), Desari P.S. Case No.25 of 1994 under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. was registered against the accused persons/appellants. The investigation of the case was carried out by the Investigating Officer (I.O., hereafter).
10. A
The court reaffirmed that the intention to kill can be established through circumstantial evidence and that joint liability under Section 34 IPC applies when multiple individuals participate in a cri....
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
Conviction upheld under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions; intention to murder not established.
Criminal Law - Common Intention - Liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, affirming that related witnesses' testimonies are credible and sufficient for establishing direct involvement in the crime.
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
