IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUDHIR SINGH, CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Dadan Choudhary @ Dadan Nonia, S/o. Inar Choudhary & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 157, 323, 324, 347 of 2018
Decided On : 31-07-2023
T.I. Parade - Criminal Law - I.P.C. Sections 396, 412 - The court found that the T.I. Parade was flawed due to the disclosure of the accused's identity before the parade, and the prosecution failed to establish the manner of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. The non-examination of a key eyewitness also prejudiced the case.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged a dacoity resulting in the death of the informant's brother and theft of cash and a mobile phone. The appellants were convicted, but they challenged the judgment citing various infirmities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found flaws in the T.I. Parade, lack of evidence regarding the manner of occurrence, and severe inconsistencies in witness testimonies. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellants, leading to the setting aside of the judgment of conviction and the acquittal of the appellants.
Issues: (I) Flawed T.I. Parade, (II) Failure to establish manner of occurrence, (III) Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and non-examination of a key eyewitness.
Ratio Decidendi: The flawed T.I. Parade, lack of evidence regarding the manner of occurrence, and severe inconsistencies in witness testimonies led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellants.
Final Decision: Criminal Appeal (DB) No.157 of 2018, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.323 of 2018, and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.324 of 2018 were allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction. Appellant Dadan Choudhary was directed to be released from custody, and appellants Ujjain Choudhary and Kanhaiya Choudhary were discharged from their respective bail bonds. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.347 of 2018 was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sudhir Singh, J.
Heard the learned counsels for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.
2. The criminal appeals arise out of common judgment dated 09.01.2018, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.157 of 2018, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.323 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.324 of 2018 have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 09.01.2018 and the order of sentence dated 16.01.2018 passed by Shri Rabindra Mani Tripathi, Fast Track Court No.2, Sasaram, Rohtas in Sessions Trial No.501 of 2013 arising out of Kargahar P.S. case No.99 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 396 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code (referred to ‘I.P.C.’). Appellant Ujjain Choudhary has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment till death under Section 396 of I.P.C. and undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 412 of I.P.C. Appellants Dadan Choudhary @ Dadan Nonia and Kanhaiya Choudhary have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life separately. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.347 of 2018 has been preferred by the appellant Sujeet Kumar Singh @ Sujeet Singh (informant of Kargahar P.S. case No.99 of 2013) against the judgment and order (in part) dated 09.01.2018 and 16.01.2018 passed by Shri Rabindra Mani Tripathi, Fast Track Court No.2, Sasaram, Rohtas in Sessions Trial No.501 of 2013 arising out of Kargahar P.S. case No.99 of 2013, by which the learned trial Court acquitted the Respondent No.2 Vicky Kumar under Sections 396 and 412 of I.P.C.
4. The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of informant Sujeet Kumar Singh (PW3) recorded by Shri Shiv Shankar Prasad (PW8), S.H.O. Kargahar P.S. on 18.04.2013 at 14.30 p.m., is that on 18.04.2013 at 13.30 p.m. while the informant alongwith his brother, namely, Ajit Kumar Singh after withdrawing Rs.80,000/- from P.N.B., Kargahar proceeded to his village with Hero Honda motorcycle and when they reached near Nawadih river on Kargahar to Kumhila pukka road, in the meantime three miscreants came there on Pulsar motorcycle and two persons came on another motorcycle and surrounded the informant and demanded cash, but informant’s brother Ajit Kumar Singh refused to give cash, upon which one of the miscreants shot Ajit Kumar Singh, who fell down and thereafter the miscreants took cash of Rs.80,000/- from the pocket of the brother of the informant and they also took one Samsung mobile from the informant and thereafter the miscreants fled away with their motorcycles.
5. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, formal F.I.R. was drawn up and Kargahar P.S. case No.99 of 2013 dated 18.04.2013 was registered under Section 396 of I.P.C. against unknown. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against four accused persons besides pending investigation against some other unknown, whereafter cognizance was taken by the S.D.J.M. under Sections 396 and 412 of I.P.C. and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether eleven witnesses, namely, Ravindar Singh (PW1), Munna Kumar Singh (PW2), Sujeet Kumar Singh-informant (PW3), Gaya Singh (PW4), Umesh Singh (PW5), Lal Babu Rai (PW6), Chandan Singh (PW7), Shiv Shankar Prasad (PW8), Ganga Shankar Prasad (PW9), Ambika Prasad Singh (PW10) and Gaurav Kumar (PW11). In support of its case, the prosecution has also produced exhibits as Ext.1 (signature of informant on fardbeyan), Ext.1/1 (signature of Rajesh Singh on fardbeyan), Ext.1/2 (signature of PW8 Shiv Shankar Prasad on fardbeyan), Ext.1/3 (identification of signature and writing of Shiv Shankar Prasad on fardbeyan), Ext.2 (inquest report), Ext.3 (signature of Umesh Singh on seizure list of recovered mobile from
Sunil Kumar Shambhudayal Gupta and others Versus State of Maharashtra
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....
A conviction under Section 396 IPC requires proof of participation by five or more individuals, which was not established in this case, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Murder – Conviction on the basis of conjectures and surmises is fatal for justice and fairness.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural irregularities in identification parades.
The court clarified that identification procedures must meet strict standards to ensure reliability; failure to do so results in acquittal due to reasonable doubt.
Point of Law : Test identification report do not constitute substantive evidence and its corroboration from the surrounding circumstance is required.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.