Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, JJ.
Murari Singh S/o Shashi Bhushan Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 806, 903, 1050 of 2018
Decided On : 09-11-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER - IPC SECTIONS 302, 307, 34; ARMS ACT SECTION 27 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertain to murder and attempted murder, respectively, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which deals with the illegal use of firearms. The court interpreted these sections in the context of the evidence presented, emphasizing the need for credible eyewitness testimony and the importance of establishing a clear motive. The court ultimately found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Pankaj Kumar Singh and the attempted murder of Rahul Kumar, stemming from a family dispute. The incident occurred on January 25, 2015, after a religious procession, where the deceased was allegedly shot on the orders of Shashi Bhushan Singh, the brother of the informant. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness accounts and medical testimony regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased and the injured witness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, particularly regarding the presence of the informant at the scene and the timeline of events. The medical evidence suggested that the timing of death did not align with the prosecution's narrative, raising doubts about the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the appellants were guilty of murder and attempted murder as charged, and whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to support its claims amidst the backdrop of familial enmity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The presence of reasonable doubt, particularly due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the medical evidence, warranted the acquittal of the appellants.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, acquitting them of all charges and cancelling their bail liabilities. The judgment of the trial court was overturned, and the appellants were directed to be released from custody.
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
1. All the three appeals have been taken up together for hearing and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, the learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of all the appellants, whereas the State has been represented, in all the appeals, by Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.05.2018 and 26.05.2018 respectively, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial Nos. 24 of 2016 + 489 of 2015, arising out of Majorganj P.S. Case No. 13 of 2015, holding the appellants to be guilty under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. However, no separate sentence has been awarded under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
4. The appellant/Murari Singh [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1050 of 2018] is said to have killed his cousin/Pankaj Kumar Singh, whereas the appellant/Govind Singh [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 903 of 2018] is said to have injured Rahul Kumar (PW-3), a co-villager and an agnate. The occurrence took place on the orders of appellant/Shashi Bhushan Singh [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 806 of 2018].
5. The case was lodged by the father of the deceased, namely, Krishnadeo Singh, who has been examined as PW-4. The appellant/Shashi Bhushan Singh is his own brother. There is a pending land dispute between the two brothers.
6. According to the F.I.R. the occurrence took place some times after 6:30 P.M. on 25.01.2015 for which the fardbeyan was recorded at 09:30 P.M. at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Sitamarhi in its Emergency Ward.
7. PW-4 has alleged in the F.I.R. that on the same day, while he along with others was returning from the river bank after immersing the Statue of Goddess Saraswati, he saw that his son/Pankaj Kumar (deceased), who had gone to collect kirana-items from a local shop, was accosted and was shot at by the appellant/Murari Singh on the orders of the appellant/Shashi Bhushan Singh, who is his father. When Rahul Singh (PW-3) went to his rescue, he too was fired at by the appellant/Govind Singh, which hit him in his nose.
8. The appellant/Mukesh Singh [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 903 of 2018], a relative of the other co-convicts, is also said to have fired from his pistol a number of times, which resulted in pandemonium at the place of occurrence. It was thereafter that PW-4 along with others took Rahul Singh and the deceased to the Sadar Hospital on a Bolero vehicle, where the son of PW-4 was declared dead and Rahul Singh (PW-3) was admitted for being treated for the injuries suffered by him. PW-4, thereafter, asserted that because of the land dispute between the two brother, the occurrence had taken place.
9. On the basis of the afore-noted fardbeyan statement made by PW-4, Majorganj P.S. Case No. 13 of 2015, dated 26.01.2015, was registered for investigation for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
10. The Trial Court, after examining eight (8) witnesses on behalf of the prosecution including the Doctor and the I.O. and one on behalf of the defence, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.
11. Mr. Ajay Thakur, the learned Advocate has urged that from the deposition of the witnesses, it would clearly appear that the deceased had received injuries in some other transaction, at some other place and at some other time, but because of the existing enmity between the family of the two brothers, namely, PW-4 and appellant/Shashi Bhushan Singh, the act of firing at the deceased and also at PW-3, the lone surviving injured person of the case, has been attributed to the two sons of the appellant/Shashi Bhushan Singh, who, as we have noted, is the own brother of the informant (PW-
The court acquitted the appellants due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, emphasizing the need for credible proof in criminal convictions.
The significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to substantial doubts regarding the credibility of witness testimo....
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 ....
The court established that inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence warrant acquittal in murder cases, highlighting the benefit of doubt principle.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical findings, even absent direct physical evidence like weapon recovery.
The conviction of the appellants for double murder was upheld as the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible witness testimonies and medical evidence, despite the absence of....
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
