Ranjeet Kumar vs State of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Pat) 507

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Pat) 507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and SHAILENDRA SINGH, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.230 of 2023
(2.8.2024)
Ranjeet Kumar ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates:
For the Appellant :M/s Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Lokesh Kumar Singh.
For the Resp. Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Harsh Singh.
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Addl. P.P.

Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dying declaration – it is a settled principle of law that when a dying declaration of one is recorded by some other person then for proving the dying declaration, the evidence of such person who has recorded the statement of the deceased, must be given – in the present matter, the written report (FIR) having been scribed by one Jeetendra Prasad at the direction of the informant, who could have been produced by the prosecution as a witness, but the prosecution did not produce him – further, the S.H.O. of Police Station, Uchkagaon, who registered the formal FIR on the basis of the written report of the informant, not produced by the prosecution – so, the prosecution failed to prove the written report (FIR) as a dying declaration. (Paras 37)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379 and 504 r/w Section 34 IPC – Appeal against acquittal accused persons – assaulting the informant with knife and iron rod resulting in informant's death subsequently in hospital – prosecution failed to prove credibility of P.W. 11 as an eye-witness – prosecution also not succeeded to prove the direct connection in between the injuries and the alleged assault – and the place of death – serious contradiction in between the weapons which have been shown in the F.I.R. as having been used by the respondents in assault and the weapons shown by the sole eye-witness (P.W. 11) and the evidence of informant's wife – P.W. 4 supporting the detenue that deceased sustained injuries on account of falling from motorcycle – no merit in the appeal which is dismissed accordingly. (Para 37)
Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 5 SCC 272; Sheikh Meheboob Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 10 SCC 387; State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, (2006) 7 SCC 172; Bahal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1976 (3) SCC 564 – Relied.

Shailendra Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Harsh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 18.11.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 765 of 2016, arising out of Uchkagaon P.S. Case No. 97 of 2011 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) read with Section 34 of IPC whereby the respondent nos. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred as ‘respondents’) have been acquitted of the charged offences.

Prosecution Story:

3. The substance of the prosecution story is as follows:—

As per prosecution, on 21.05.2011, at about 5:00 P.M., the informant (deceased) was going to his clinic by riding on a motorcycle which was being driven by him. When he reached at Jhirua-Arna Road near a mosque, the accused/respondents namely, Arvind Yadav, Rajeev Yadav and Binod Yadav along with their 50 supporters were coming in a procession from the side of Arna Market and when they saw the informant near the mosque, they started abusing him with saying that from now he would not be able to fight election, even then the informant was proceeding ahead silently but in the meantime, the respondent, Arvind Yadav, pulled his motorcycle from behind resulting in falling down of the informant from his motorcycle. Thereafter, the respondent, Rajeev Yadav, inflicted a knife blow at the neck of the informant which hit at his cheek just below his right eye and after that the other respondents started assaulting him by means of iron rod and he sustained serious injuries to his elbow, chest and left side of rib cage (Panjara) on account of that assault. The informant further alleged that during the course of occurrence, the respondent, Arvind Yadav, snatched away his mobile phone and the respondent, Binod Yadav took out Rs.1500/- from his pocket. As per the informant, two persons namely, Munnalal Singh, and Hridyanand Singh witnessed the occurrence and he was taken to government hospital at Uchkagaon, where he was treated.

4. On the basis of above written report which is said to have been filed by the informant himself, the formal FIR bearing Uchkagaon P.S. Case No. 97 of 2011 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and during investigation, the informant died, so the Section 302 of IPC was added.

5. After the completion of investigation, the respondents were chargesheeted by two different chargesheets and the Sessions Trial Case No. 765 of 2016 and 900 of 2016, arising out of the same Uchkagaon P.S. Case No. 97 of 2011 relating to the present matter were amalgamated and the trial of the respondents was started jointly.

6. The respondents stood charged for the offences under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 341, 323, 324/34, 379/34 and 504/34 of IPC.

7. In ocular evidence the prosecution examined the following 13 witnesses:—

P.W.-1:- Ranjeet Kumar, Son of the informant

P.W.-2:- Tara Devi

P.W.-3:- Sunita Devi, Wife of the Informant

P.W.-4:- Jiv Dhan Paswan

P.W.-5:- Dr. Sanjeev Kumar

P.W.-6:- Dr. Jahir Abbas

P.W.-7:- Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh

P.W.-8:- Vipin Lal Ram, Investigating Officer

P.W.-9:- Dr. Ram Lakhan Prasad

P.W.-10:- Brajbhushan Singh