Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and SHAILENDRA SINGH, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1030 of 2013
(3.5.2024)
Arun Kumar ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 372 – Appeal against acquittal – Offences under Section 147, 148, 302/34, 201, 323, 324, 325 and 307 of the I.P.C. – The trial court found that P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 were assaulted only when they stopped the accused persons from taking the dead body of the deceased – This sequence of occurrence is not corroborated from the fardbeyan and the evidence of P.W.-3 – No error committed by the trial court in analyzing the evidence of P.W.-3 – In course of trial, P.W.-3 (informant) has stated similarly supporting the evidence of PW-1 but in the said process he has reversed the sequence of event as stated by him earlier in his fardbeyan – The doctor (PW-4) opined that the injury no. 1 was not possible by gun shot – Regarding injury of Uma Pati Tiwari (informant) the doctor has stated that he had only one injury and the injury on mere look appeared to be superficial one – Another doctor, PW-5, who has proved the entire report of Bed-head tickets has deposed that he cannot say with certainty the nature of weapon used in causing the injury and whether the injury was caused by gun shot or not – The first statement made by PW-8 before the I.O. has been suppressed by the prosecution PW-8 had disclosed name of only four accused but even that has been suppressed by the prosecution in course of trial – Therefore, findings of the learned trial court saying that prosecution has suppressed the first version of the occurrence is correct – The police did not register any FIR on the basis of the statement of PW-8 – The learned trial court rightly appreciated the evidence on record – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41 & 42)
Haalesh @ Haleshi @ Kurubara Haleshi Vs. State of Karnataka passed in Cr. Appeal No. 1954/12 and Cr. Appeal No. 1955 of 2012 and Cr. Appeal No. 1303 of 2014 – Distinguished.
Bikkar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1989 SC 440; Adya Singh Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 3011 – Referred.
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant who is the son of the deceased Shivkumar Pati Tiwari under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr. P.C’) for setting aside the judgment dated 17.09.2013 passed by learned Adhoc Additional District and sessions judge III, Siwan, in Sessions Trial no. 32 of 1993, G.R. No. 1628 of 1991, arising out of Ashaon Police Station Case No. 42 of 1991 dated 25.07.1991 whereby and whereunder respondent no. 2 to 5 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 302/34, 201, 323, 324, 325, 307 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).
2. This Court heard this appeal on 21.04.2014 and dismissed it.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of appeal dated 21.04.2014, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cr. Appeal no 825 of 2017 in SLP (CRL) no. 8717 of 2014. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 01.05.2017 set aside the judgment of this Court and remanded the case to the High Court for hearing the appeal on merit afresh in accordance with law.
Prosecution story
4. The prosecution story is based on the fardbeyan of Uma Pati Tiwari (PW-3) recorded recorded by A. A. Khan A.S.I of Town Police Station, Siwan on 25.07.1991 at 1 P.M. in Sadar Hospital, Siwan alleging that on 24.07.1991 at about 9:00 PM the informant (PW-3) along with his younger brother Ram Tapasya Pati Tiwari (PW-1) and nephew Shivkumar Pati Tiwari, Advocate (the deceased) as also Thakur Harijan (PW-7) were talking with each other at the bathan situated at village Kashidatt Diyara. At that time, Ram Naresh Chaudhary with gun, Sukhraj Mallah with gun, Janardan Ahir with lathi, Chandeshwar Kurmi with Gun, Anil Singh with gun, Balinder Ahir with lathi, Naga Bhar with lathi and Dwarika Chaudhary with lathi who had formed an unlawful assembly came there from southern side and attacked on them. Janardan Ahir and Balinder Ahir hit 4-5 times on the right hand of the informant with lathi and Sukhraj Mallah fired gun shot on Ram Tapsya Pati Tiwari. Ram Naresh Chaudhary, Anil Singh and Sukhraj Mallah fired bullets from gun on Shivkumar Pati Tiwari, Advocate. The informant and the people with him fell down being injured. Shivkumar Pati Tiwari died and the accused persons fled away with his dead body towards south. The informant (PW-3) received injuries on his right hand and back. Ram Tapasya Pati Tiwari (PW-1) received injury by gunshot on his left eye, ear and nose. The incident was seen by villager Hirdya Narayan Tiwari, Ramji Tiwari and others. The cause of incident was that some days ago the accused persons had cut and stolen away the barbed wire of the field and bathan of the informant upon which, they were scolded. The informant further stated that he has identified the accused persons in moonlit night and torch light. The injured persons were admitted at Sadar Hospital Siwan for treatment. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan the formal FIR was drawn on 25.07.1991 at 6:00 pm bearing Assaon Police Station Case No. 42 of 1991 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 307, 323 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act against 8 accused persons.
5. After investigation the I.O. submitted charge-sheet no. 32/91 on 21.10.1991 against Ram Naresh Chaudhary and Balinder Ahir showing them in custody. Anil Singh, Sukhraj Mallah, Chandeshwar Kurmi, Janardan Ahir, Naga Bhar and Dwarika Chaudhary were shown absconder and later on supplementary charge-sheet no. 3 of 1992 was submitted against Anil Singh and Naga Bhar showing them in custody.
6. After cognizance on 17.09.1992, the trial of three accused Sukhraj Mallah, Chandeshwar Ahir and Dwarika Chaudhary was separated. Thereafter the trial of Naga Bhar was also separated on 01.03.2006 and after commitment on the basis of main chargesheet Trial no. 32 of 1993 was registered and on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet Sessions Trial No. 76 of 1993 was registered. Vide order dated 30.04.1993 both the trials w
The evidentiary value of hostile witnesses can support the prosecution case if found credible, notwithstanding the non-recovery of weapons or procedural lapses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish the shared common intention of the accused in committing the murder.
The prosecution bears the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and significant inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts undermined the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt of their involvement in the crime.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent eyewitness accounts can lead to acquittal.
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
