SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Pat) 441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARVIND SRIVASTAVA and SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 1092 and
1077 of 2017
(2.4.2024)
Nitish @ Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Yadav @ Birbal Yadav (in 1092)
Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram Yadav  (in 2017) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar & Anr. (in 1092)
C. B. I., New Delhi (in 1077) ... Respondents

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s Gouranga Chatterjee, Arvind Kumar, Anirvan Choudhari, Sahil Kumar (in 1092); M/s Vindhya Keshri Kumar, Sr. Adv., Kamla Kant Pandey (in 1077).
For the Respondents: M/s Shivesh Chandra Mishra, Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Adv. (CBI) (in 1092); Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Adv. (CBI).

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 173(8) and 190 – Further investigation – Continuation of earlier investigation is further investigation and on completion of further investigation investigating agency has to forward to Magistrate a further report or reports as envisaged under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – In course of further investigation commission of some fresh offences also may be disclosed but connected with transaction which is subject matter of earlier report – Police, after further investigation, can file supplementary report – Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence not offender – He does not take cognizance against individual accused person – Hands of Investigating Agency for further investigation should not be tied down on the ground of mere delay – Mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding trial should not stand in way of further investigation if that would help Court in arriving at truth and do real and substantial and effective justice – There is distinction between prima facie case for cognizance and prima facie case for proceedings against accused, for the purpose of setting law in motion. (Paras 42,44,47 and 50)

Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 – Sections 3(2)(a) and 50 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149, 323/149 and 353/149 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Murder of DFO by terrorist outfit – Life sentence – Sanction to prosecute appellants had been accorded by central Government – Under POTA if investigation was still bending even beyond one year, that would be no avail because Court would not be able to take cognizance of offence under principal Act after expiry of one year from commencement of Repeal Act – But that would not affect pending cases before Court in which cognizance has already been taken – Prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt that D.F.O. was brutally killed by activists of Maoist Communist Centre (MCC), which is a banned terrorist organization – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 32, 59, 74 and 75)

Sunil Dutta Mishra, J. – These two appeals have been preferred by the aforesaid appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 21.06.2017 and order of sentence dated 05.07.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in R.C. Case No.04 (S) of 2002 whereby and whereunder appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POTA’) with imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1 lac, under Section 22(5) of POTA with imprisonment of 14 years, under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for three years, under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1 lac, under Section 353 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code rigorous imprisonment for two years, under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code imprisonment for six months and under Section 27 of the Arms Act rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5000/-. All the sentences of the convicts/appellants Nitish alias Birbal Yadav and Ram Bachan shall run concurrently. So far convict/appellant Nirala Yadav is concerned, who was commander of the group, he shall first undergo sentence under Sections 22(5) of the POTA, 27 of the Arms Act, 148, 353 read with Section 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code as stated above concurrently before commencement of life sentence i.e. imprisonment for life under Section 3(2)(a) of the POTA and under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences shall run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, convicts/appellants Nirala Yadav, Nitish alias Birbal Yadav and Ram Bachan Yadav have further to undergo R.I. for one year.

2. Since the above captioned appeals arise out of common factual matrix and common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, we are disposing them by this common judgment.

3. The prosecution case, as revealed from Exhibit 1, fardbeyan of PW-1, Kumar Narendra, Range Officer of Forest, recorded by S.I. Ajay Prasad, at Adhaura P.S. on 15.02.2002 at 14:00 hours, is that on 15.02.2002 at about 9:00 A.M. the informant Kumar Narendra along with Divisional Forest Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.F.O.’) Sanjay Singh (deceased), Sahabad Forest Division, Foresters P.N. Singh, Ram Jeevan Pandit (PW-2), Ram Pravesh Choudhary, Shiv Murat Pandey (Bodyguard), Umesh Singh and driver of government gypsy Mahboob Alam (PW-3) went by gypsy to check the road under construction running to Rehal and when at about 11:00 A.M. the group arrived near Forest Office at Rehal, they found a person in green uniform, heard from someone in the vehicle that perhaps he is a ‘party wala’. All alighted from the vehicle and started proceeding towards range office but within a short time they realized that he is, in fact, party wala, they tried to come back but were surrounded by five to six armed persons in the similar uniforms and for about forty five minutes all interrogated them by different means and the group started to escape through their vehicle, the men in uniform whistled. Twenty five to thirty persons of their group including four to five females in civil dress arrive, one of them aged forty years having one child and other four were aged about twenty five to thirty years and their commander aged about forty years of a bit dark complex whereas remaining were also aged about twenty five to thirty years, lean and thin, and forced them to come out of the village, tied hands of D.F.O., Sanjay Singh from behind though a towel (gamchhi), kept him separated from the other companions and took the D.F.O. ahead. On objection raised by himself and his fellow men, they were assaulted by lathi and butt of gun. Ultimately, feeling helpless, the companions kept themselves separated. Four to five terrorists brought the D.F.O. forcibly towards eastern forest and forced others to maintain silence. After sometime, they heard sound

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top