Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, NANI TAGIA, JJ.
Bhola Paswan S/o Lakhichand Paswan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1037 of 2017
Decided On : 01-12-2023
KEYWORD - Murder - Section 302 IPC, Section 313 CrPC - The court discussed Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to punishment for murder, and Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that incriminating evidence must be put to the accused for their explanation. The court emphasized the importance of establishing motive and the necessity of a fair trial, highlighting that failure to address material circumstances could vitiate the trial. The lack of concrete evidence and the abandonment of the motive during the trial influenced the court's decision to acquit the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Parmeshwar Thakur under Section 302 IPC, allegedly due to a personal motive involving the deceased's relationship with the appellant's wife. The conviction was based on witness testimonies, primarily from relatives of the deceased, who claimed to have seen the appellant assault the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was weak due to the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the murder. The witnesses were closely related to the deceased, raising concerns about their credibility. The motive presented was not substantiated during the trial, and the investigation was deemed inadequate.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC, and whether the trial was conducted fairly in accordance with Section 313 CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the failure to put crucial incriminating evidence to the appellant constituted a serious irregularity that vitiated the trial. The absence of direct evidence and the abandonment of the motive during the trial led to the conclusion that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of the murder charge, citing the benefit of doubt due to the prosecution's failure to provide sufficient evidence and the procedural irregularities in the trial.
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for one year under Section 302 IPC in S. Tr. No. 342/2014-46/2015 (arising out of Karpi P.S. Case No. 52/2014) corresponding to G.R. No. 673/2014) vide judgment and order dated 29.05.2017/31.05.2017 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad.
3. One Parmeshwar Thakur is said to have been killed at the hands of the appellant.
4. The appellant worked as a labourer in the village, who killed the deceased because his wife was taken away by the deceased for the last six months. These facts can be gathered from the FIR lodged by one of the sons of the deceased viz. Sunil Kumar, who has been examined as PW-7. In his fardbeyan which was recorded by S.I. Kameshwar Singh (PW-8) at 11:00 A.M. on 23.03.2014, he has alleged that while his father (deceased) was coming back from the field after defecating, he was assaulted on his head by means of a lathi by the appellant. This happened in front of the house of one Govind Thakur who though has not been examined in the trial but his wife has come to the witness-stand to depose that she had seen the deceased lying injured at the place of occurrence. No sooner had PW-7 reached the place where his father lay injured, he died. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was recorded.
5. In the fardbeyan, however, PW-7 has made a very specific statement that the appellant had killed the deceased for the reason that he was suspected to have eloped with the wife of the appellant. For a son to make such statement in the fardbeyan, it means a lot and not just a casual statement.
6. However, to our surprise, we have found that this motive of the appellant for killing the deceased has been completely abandoned during the trial.
7. Based on the fardbeyan of PW-7, a case vide Karpi (Bansi) P.S. Case No. 52/2014 dated 23.03.2014 was registered for investigation for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
8. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet whereupon cognizance was taken and the appellant was put on trial.
9. The Trial Court, after having examined eleven witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, has convicted the appellant as aforesaid.
10. Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that though almost all the witnesses have claimed to have seen the appellant killing the deceased but from their deposition at the trial, it becomes very evident that they had not seen the actual part of the assault and had only seen the deceased lying injured in the field across the road and opposite to the house of Govind Thakur, who has not been examined at the trial.
11. Secondly, it has been urged that all the witnesses are directly related to the deceased and the possibility of their having made tutored statement cannot be ruled out. She has also urged that even the place of occurrence could not be proved.
12. The first I.O. of the case viz. Kameshwar Singh/PW-8 found that the dead body was lying in a field and not on the road in front of the house of the Govind Thakur as has been narrated in the FIR.
13. Though the motive introduced by the son of the deceased (PW-7) has conveniently been abandoned, nonetheless, it provides a clue for blaming the appellant for the death of the deceased.
14. Lastly, it has been submitted that no incriminating circumstance was put to the appellant for him to explain away his defence.
15. As opposed to the aforenoted contentions, Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that it is a matter of common knowledge that people do go out in the morning in the countryside for defecating and therefore, the possibility of the deceased having been assaulted by the
The court established that the failure to communicate material circumstances to the accused during trial can lead to a miscarriage of justice, necessitating acquittal if the prosecution's case is not....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lack of motive and unreliable witness testimonies undermine conviction.
The principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.
The burden of proof in a criminal case lies on the prosecution, but in cases of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the accused to provide a cogent explanation is lighter. Motive and conduct are r....
The court established that for a claim of provocation to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, the provocation must be sudden and grave, and the burden of proof lies with the accused to demonstrate....
Criminal Law – Offence of Murder - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Prosecution has succeeded in establishing other circumstances in chain raising a strong presumption of guilt ag....
Familial relationships do not inherently discredit witness testimony; credible evidence can uphold a conviction despite investigative shortcomings.
The principle of benefit of doubt necessitates acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially with inconsistent eyewitness testimony.
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
