Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUDHIR SINGH, CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Bablu Singh @ Amresh Singh S/o Chandradev Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 114, 125 of 1996
Decided On : 19-08-2023
I.P.C. - Criminal Appeal - Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code - [Sections 302/34 of I.P.C.] - The court discussed the non-examination of independent witnesses, defect in the investigation, and the credibility of eyewitnesses. The court referred to judgments to establish that the absence of independent witnesses does not vitiate the prosecution's case and that minor discrepancies in the evidence do not affect the trustworthiness of the witness. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case involved the appellants being convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for a murder that occurred at a chowk. The appellants chased and shot the victim, leading to his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was not vitiated by the non-examination of independent witnesses and the defect in the investigation. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.
Issues: (I) Whether the non-examination of any independent witness by the prosecution witness will vitiate the prosecution case? (II) Whether the defect in the investigation will prejudice the trial of the appellants?
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of independent witnesses does not vitiate the prosecution's case, and minor discrepancies in the evidence do not affect the trustworthiness of the witness. The perceived inadequacies in the investigative process shall not result in any prejudice to the appellants.
Final Decision: Both the criminal appeals stand dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 13.03.1996 are affirmed. The appellants' bail bonds are cancelled, and they are directed to serve the remaining sentence in jail custody.
JUDGMENT :
SUDHIR SINGH, J.
1. The criminal appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.03.1996, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Both the criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 13.03.1996 passed by Shri Dahaur Baitha, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 1988/98 of 1995 arising out of Barauni P.S. Case No. 289 of 1986, whereby and whereunder the appellants of both criminal appeals have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (referred to ‘I.P.C.’) and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C.
3. The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of informant Ramakant Singh (PW-8) recorded by A.S.I. Barauni P.S. on 30.08.1989 at 5:30 p.m. is that while the informant alongwith Sarpunch Rabindra Singh was taking tea at the shop of Md. Akamul by the side of Karichak chowk, his brother Ajay Kumar Singh alias Nunu Singh was coming by cycle from Begusarai after seeing his ailing mother, who was getting treatment in the clinic of Dr. M.N. Rai, Begusarai alongwith his villagers Hare Ram Singh and Surendra Singh. When his brother proceeded ahead Karichak chowk and came infront of the shop of Md. Esamul Mian at about 5:00 p.m. then accused Bablu Singh uttered that enemy had come. Just thereafter the accused Vijay Singh alias Chhotka, Rabindra Singh alias Tunmun, Daya Ram Singh and Ram Sujan Singh having pistol in their hands came from west side of the road. Accused Bachcha Singh and accused Arun Kumar Jha came out from the shop of Esamul having pistol in their hands. All the accused persons attempted to encircle his brother, but he tried to flee away. In the meantime, accused Daya Ram Singh opened fire, which hit on the hand of his brother and then he leaving his cycle, shoes, etc. in order to save his life began to flee towards the villager in the east. But the accused persons chased him and accused Ram Sujan Singh in course of chase shot on him, which hit his back and as such his brother fell down. Thereafter accused Rabindra Singh shot on him, which hit his chest. Accused Arun Kumar Jha and Bachcha Singh also opened fire, which hit him. Thereafter accused Vijay Singh opened fire uttered that now he is dead. The accused persons seeing the villagers and passersby assembling there fled towards east in a lonely place. The informant has also alleged that such crime was committed after making plan as litigation is going on from before with them.
4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan of informant, Barauni P.S. Case No. 289 of 1986 was registered. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet and thereafter cognizance was taken by the Jurisdictional Magistrate and thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether fourteen witnesses, namely, Bhagirath Singh (PW-1), Ram Sogarath Singh (PW-2), Ram Dinesh Singh (PW-3), Ram Nandan Singh (PW-4), Hare Ram Singh (PW-5), Dr. S.M. Bakar (PW-6), Rabindra Singh (PW-7), Ramakant Singh-informant (PW-8), Surendra Prasad Singh (PW-9), Indradeo Singh (PW-10), Suresh Kumar Thakur-I.O. (PW-11), Md. Salimuddin (PW-12), Mahanth Pandey (PW-13) and Umakant Mishra (PW-14). In support of its case, the prosecution has also produced exhibits as Ext.1 (signature of Bhagirath Singh on seizure list), Ext.1/1 (signature of Ram Sogarath Singh on seizure list), Ext.2 (signature of Ram Dinesh Singh on inquest report), Ext.2/1 (signature of Ram Nandan Singh on inquest report), Ext.1/2 (signature of Ram Dinesh Singh on seizure list), Ext.1/3 (signature of Ram Nandan Singh on seizure list), Ext.3 (carbon copy of P.M. Report dated 31.8.92 of dead body of deceased Ajay Singh alias
The absence of independent witnesses does not vitiate the prosecution's case, and minor discrepancies in the evidence do not affect the trustworthiness of the witness.
Murder – Conviction on the basis of conjectures and surmises is fatal for justice and fairness.
Conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness if credible, but significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
(1) Number of witnesses – There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness – But if there are doubts about testimony courts will insist on corroboration.(2) M....
Conviction for murder by unlawful assembly sustainable on reliable sole eyewitness to killing, corroborated by medical evidence and abduction witnesses, despite FIR delay, witness non-examination, an....
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
