Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Nawneet Kumar Pandey, JJ.
Mukesh Singh Son of Late Laldeo Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.238 of 2019, CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 108 of 2019, CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 130 of 2019, CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 191 of 2019, CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 254 of 2019
Decided On : 29-08-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER AND ASSAULT - IPC SECTIONS 302, 148, 149; ARMS ACT SECTION 27 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertain to murder and rioting, 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, particularly focusing on the lack of corroborative medical evidence for the alleged firearm injury and inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the place of occurrence. This led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, influencing the court's decision to overturn the lower court's judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Ajit Kumar and assault on the informant, Dina Nath Singh, following an incident that occurred after a Holi celebration. The informant alleged that the appellants attacked them with firearms and other weapons, leading to Ajit Kumar's death days later. The prosecution's case was based on witness testimonies and a Fardbeyan recorded after the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant discrepancies in witness accounts regarding the place of occurrence and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. The medical evidence did not support the claim of a firearm injury, as the post-mortem report indicated injuries consistent with blunt force trauma. The court concluded that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the appellants were guilty of murder and assault as charged, and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the convictions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative medical evidence to support ocular testimonies in criminal cases. It highlighted that inconsistencies in witness statements and the absence of medical evidence linking the injuries to the alleged firearm use created reasonable doubt regarding the appellants' guilt.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were discharged from all liabilities.
JUDGMENT :
Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.
This appeal has been preferred under Sections 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the judgment dated 04.01.2019 and the order of sentence dated 10.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Patna City in S.Tr. No. 1031 of 2014, arising out of Bye-Pass P.S. Case No. 18 of 2012, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 238 of 2019 | ||||
| Appellant Name | Conviction under Section | Sentence | ||
| Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine | ||
| Mukesh Singh | 302 of the IPC | For Life | 20,000/- | SI for 1 year |
| 148 of the IPC | R.I. for two years | – | -- | |
| 27(i) of the Arms Act | R.I. for 3 years | 2,000/- | SI for 3 months | |
| Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 108 of 2019 | ||||
| Appellant Name | Conviction under Section | Sentence | ||
| Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine | ||
| Ramesh Pd. Singh @ Ramesh Singh | 302 of the IPC | For Life | 20,000/- | SI for 1 year |
| 148 of the IPC | R.I. for two years | – | -- | |
| Tunnu Singh @ Mithlesh Singh | 148 of the IPC | R.I. for two years | – | -- |
| Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 130 of 2019 | ||||
| Appellant Name | Conviction under Section | Sentence | ||
| Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine | ||
| Amarnath Singh | 302 of the IPC | For Life | 20,000/- | SI for 1 year |
| 148 of the IPC | R.I. for two years | – | -- | |
| Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 191 of 2019 | ||||
| Appellant Name | Conviction under Section | Sentence | ||
| Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine | ||
| Bhushn Singh @ Bhushan Singh | 302 of the IPC | For Life | 20,000/- | SI for 1 year |
| 148 of the IPC | R.I. for two years | – | -- | |
| Dinesh Singh | 302 of the IPC | For Life | 20,000/- | SI for 1 year |
| 148 of the IPC | R.I. for two years | – | -- | |
| Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 254 of 2019 | ||||
| Appellant Name | Conviction under Section | Sentence | ||
| Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine | ||
| Karmu Singh | 302 of the IPC | For Life | 20,000/- | SI for 1 year |
| 148 of the IPC | R.I. for two years | – | -- | |
2. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. The Fardbeyan of informant Dina Nath Singh (PW 4) was recorded in P.M.C.H., Patna on 10.03.2012 at about 12:30 A.M. (night). He has stated in his Fardbeyan that in previous night (09.03.2012) at about 9:30 P.M., the informant was returning to his house after participating in Holi celebrations and his younger brother Ajit Kumar aged about 30 years (deceased) was also with him. As soon as, the informant and his brother reached near the house of appellant Dinesh Singh, seven F.I.R. named persons who are appellants herein, viz., Mukesh Singh, Dinesh Singh, Tunnu Singh, Bhushan Singh, Karmu Singh and Amarnath Singh, equipped with pistol, iron rod, Farsa, Lathi, stick etc., encircled them. They dragged them away to their house. The appellant Mukesh Singh ordered other accused persons to kill the informant and his younger brother. Thereafter, appellant Mukesh Singh himself fired on Ajit Kumar which hit in his head. Ajit Kumar fell down on the ground and the blood started oozing. Again appellant Mukesh Singh fired at the informant, but he escaped luckily. Thereafter, the appellants Ramesh Singh, Bhushan Singh, Tunnu Singh, Karmu Singh and Amarnath Singh, who were equipped with Lathi, stick, iron rod, Farsa etc., started assaulting the informant, who became injured. On the outcry made by the informant, the villagers assembled. As Ajit Kumar was badly injured, so he was hurriedly brought to P.M.C.H., Patna. The reason for the incident has been stated in the Fardbeyan that two days prior to the occurrence, appellant Mukesh Singh was abusing the family members of the informant and on protest made by the family members of the informant, he had threatened them of dire consequences.
4. On the basis of the Fardbeyan, the formal FIR was registered on 10.03.2012 at about 04:15 P.M
Credible eyewitness testimony can substantiate charges in criminal cases, regardless of the absence of motive, provided it instills confidence in the court.
Attempt to murder – Intention to kill must be apparent from act of accused.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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
