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) 608

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ashutosh Kumar, Jitendra Kumar, JJ.
Kedar Singh S/o- Late Nageshwar Singh - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.640, 671, 675 of 2018
Decided On : 28-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Ansul, Mr. Rajgiri Singh, Mr. Bijay Prasad, Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vipin Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Informant :Mr. Ravindar Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP, Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP

The court affirmed that eyewitness testimony from related witnesses can be credible, and minor discrepancies do not undermine the prosecution's case if the core facts are established beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 27 - Conviction for murder - Appellants convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment - Prosecution established case beyond reasonable doubt through eyewitness testimony and medical evidence - Motive established due to familial conflict over marriage - No merit in appeal against conviction. (Paras 1, 52, 55)

(B) Evidence - Eyewitnesses - Testimony of related witnesses is admissible and can be relied upon if credible - Minor discrepancies do not undermine the core of the prosecution case. (Paras 24, 27)

(C) Criminal Procedure - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - The prosecution must prove guilt without reasonable doubt; benefit of doubt goes to the accused. (Paras 38, 42)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Premchand Singh, shot by them in a market due to a familial dispute over marriage. The incident was witnessed by the informant and his family members. (Paras 1-3)

Findings of Court:
The court found the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt, with corroborating medical evidence and eyewitness accounts. (Paras 55)

Issues: The main issues were the credibility of eyewitnesses and the sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 52, 55)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence of related witnesses is admissible and credible if consistent, and minor discrepancies do not negate the prosecution's case. (Paras 24, 27)

Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Kumar, J.

The present appeals have been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence dated 07.04.2018 and 09.04.2018 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Siwan in Session Trial No. 411 of 2016, arising out of Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 212 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 5022 of 2015, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27 read with Section 35 of the Arms Act, and all three appellants are sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 27 read with Section 35 of Arms Act, with default clause. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The FIR bearing Raghunathpur P.S. Case No. 212 of 2015 was registered on 14.11.2015 at 08.15 O’clock for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act against three accused Persons who are appellants herein on the fardbeyan of one Rakesh Kumar Singh at 8.15 pm on 13.11.2015 before Police Officer, Nagar Thana at Sadar Hospital, Siwan.

3. The prosecution case as emerging from the fardbeyan is that at 4.30 pm on 13.11.2015, the informant was standing on the roof of his hardware shop along with his brother Rajesh Singh and talking to him. His father Premchand Singh was standing in front of the shop and talking to a vegetable vendor. The shop is situated at village Patar. All of a sudden, on a black coloured Passion Pro motorcycle, accused Kedar Singh, Haran Singh and Dhananjay Singh came. Kedar Singh was driving the motorcycle and other two co-accused were sitting as pillion riders. After stopping the motorcycle, all three accused took out pistols from their waist and shot at the head of his father and after sitting on the motorcycle, which was already in start condition, fled away towards Asaon. Further case of the informant is that he also saw three other persons on motorcycle in suspicious circumstances at the time of firing. At the time of firing, these persons were observing the situation and 2-3 other persons, who were on foot carrying pistol, were monitoring. Seeing the firing, the informant came down from the roof of his shop along with his brother crying. But by the time, they came on the ground, accused persons had fled away. His father had fallen on the ground in an injured condition. Thereafter, the informant took out his Scorpio vehicle bearing No. JH-01V-7117 and took his father to Raghunathpur Primary Health Center, wherefrom he was referred to Sadar Hospital, Siwan. But on way to Siwan, he died and the doctor at Siwan declared him dead. It is further alleged that one year and nine months back, the informant had solemnized love marriage with one Sabya Singh, the daughter of appellant/Dhananjay Singh and since then they were extending threats to kill them saying “you have played with my honour, I will play with your blood”.

4. After registration of the F.I.R., investigation commenced and after investigation, charge-sheet No. 94 of 2016 dated 15.08.2016 was filed against all three appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of Arms Act. After cognizance on 24.08.2016 by the A.C.J.M.-VIII, Siwan, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 31.08.2016.

5. Charges were framed against all three accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The same were read over and explained to the accused persons, which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial commenced.

6. During trial, following seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution:-

    (i) P.W.-1 – Rajesh Kumar Singh (son of the deceased)

    (ii) P.W.-2 – Rabindra Singh (brother of t

      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