IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARVIND SRIVASTAVA and SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.261 of 1996
(23.2.2024)
Narayan Sah & Ors. ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondents
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 149 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Murder – Common object – Life sentence – Witnesses examined by prosecution have projected themselves as eye witnesses and assigned role of appellants in incident but they themselves admitted that they had not seen occurrence – Prosecution has also failed to examine doctor who had treated informant – Evidence of witnesses raises serious doubts about prosecution story – Post-mortem report or injury report is not substantive evidence – It has to be proved by maker of it – Doctor's statement in Court is alone substantive evidence – Post-mortem report contains opinion of Medical Officer whether injuries were post-mortem or ante-mortem, approximate time of death, kind of weapon which was used in causing injuries – Prosecution despite opportunity failed to prove post-mortem through medical officer concern by leading oral evidence – When there is no eye witness, then entire case of prosecution depends upon circumstantial evidence – Circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – Previous enmity is a double-edged sword – One hand, it provides motive to crime and on other, there is a possibility of false implication – Non-examination of material witnesses in trial is also fatal to prosecution to establish guilt of appellants at all – Appellants acquitted of charges levelled against them – Appeal allowed. (Paras 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35 and 36)
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 25)
Sunil Dutta Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the aforesaid appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 29.06.1996 and order of sentence dated 01.07.1996 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Sessions Trial No. 136 of 1989 whereby and whereunder appellants, namely, Narain Sah, Yogendra Sah, Hari Nandan Sah and Shambhu Sah have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C). They have also been convicted under Sections 323, 147 and 447 of I.P.C. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and it was ordered that the period of imprisonment undergone during investigation and trial of the case shall be set off.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 11th June, 1987 at about 6:00 a.m. the informant Sukh Sagar Paswan along with his brother Raj Kishore Paswan (deceased) and bullocks reached at his field to plough his field. His brother Raj Kishore Paswan started tilling his land and the informant was standing there. In the meantime all accused persons came there with deadly weapons i.e. lathi, fatta, farsa and arrow forming unlawful assembly and accused Darogi Sah questioned about tilling of the land. The informant told that he was tilling his own land, upon which on the command of accused Darogi Sah, the accused Yogendra Sah started beating the informant with fatta and Narain Sah, Harinandan Sah, Darogi Sah and Shambhu Sah started beating his brother. Narain Sah inflicted farsa blow on the head of the brother of the informant due to which blood started coming out from his head. Thereafter the informant raised alarm. On alarm, the witnesses and the wife of the informant Radha Devi came there. Radha Devi was also assaulted by accused Narain Sah and Harinandan Sah with fatta. Thereafter the accused persons took away bullocks and plough of the informant and ran away towards the village. The informant has stated that the occurrence took place due to previous enmity. The fardbeyan was recorded by ASI, Umesh Prasad Singh in presence of two witnesses at Kaluha O.P. Shankarpur and forwarded the same to SHO Singheswar Police Station who on the basis of the said fardbeyan, Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 99 of 1987 was registered against the accused persons/appellants. During the treatment, Raj Kishore Paswan died in the Hospital. The investigation of the case was carried out by the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as I.O.).
4. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against eleven accused persons (out of which proceeding against Shiv Nandan Sah was dropped vide order dated 12.08.1989). Thereafter cognizance was taken on 13.05.1988 against them. The copy of the police papers were supplied to accused persons under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 16.10.1989 and charges were framed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura on 22.08.1992 against the accused persons. The accused persons denied the allegations levelled against them and claimed to be tried. During trial, out of ten accused persons, one Darogi Sah died.
5. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution adduced the following oral evidences: –
| PW-1 | Khattar Paswan (Hostile) |
| PW-2 | Ashok Paswan (Tendered Witness) |
| PW-3 | Binhai Paswan (Hostile) |
| PW-4 | Shiv Shankar Paswan (Hostile) |
| PW-5 | Kedar Paswan (Tendered Witness) |
| PW-6 | Radha Devi (wife of informant) |
| PW-7 | Sukh Sagar Paswan (informant) |
| PW-8 | Shiv Shankar Manjhi (I.O.) |
| PW-9 | Dr. K.B. Yadav (Medical Officer who had treated the deceased Raj Kishore Paswan) |
6.
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....
Interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable and should be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being partisan. Minor discrepancies and contradictions should not ....
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
Eyewitness testimony from injured relatives is credible and can support a conviction, provided it is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence.
Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, holds significant evidentiary value in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
The testimony of an injured witness holds greater evidentiary value, and minor discrepancies in witness statements do not necessarily render the evidence untrustworthy.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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.