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
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:-
(ii) P.W.-2 – Rabindra Singh (brother of t
Appabhai & anr. Vs. State of Gujrat
Darya Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors (2017) 11 SCC 195
Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh & Ors; (2017) 11 SCC 195
Mano Dutt and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; (2012) 4 SCC 79
Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra
Pulicherla Nagaraju Vs. State of A.P.
Harbans Kaur Vs. State of Haryana; (2005) 9 SCC 195
Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Piara Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
C. Muniappan & others Vs. State of T.N.
State of U.P. Vs. Krishan Master
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr Vs. State Of Maharashtra
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dal Singh
Smt. Shamim Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi)
S. Govidaarju Vs. State of Karnataka
Narotam Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Anr.
Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana
Subal Ghorai and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors.
State of M. P. vs. Mansingh & Ors.
Sheo Shankar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand And Anr.
Sukhdeo Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Surendra Chauhan Vs. State of M.P.
Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of T.N. (1976) 3 SCC 779
Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 8 SCC 428
Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P.
Chhota Ahirwar Vs. State of M.P.
Kali Ram Vs. State of HP (1973) 2 SCC 808
Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
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 reasonabl....
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
The significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
The court affirmed that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and testimonies of interested witnesses can be credible if corroborated by medical evidence.
Convictions can be based on a sole eyewitness's testimony if credible; however, significant contradictions can undermine the prosecution's case, particularly regarding common intention under Section ....
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
Reliable eye-witness testimony of natural witnesses, consistent with medical evidence and prompt FIR, sustains murder conviction under 302/34 IPC despite alleged enmity.
Conviction under Section 302 cannot rest on sole eyewitness testimony riddled with contradictions, delay in naming accused, medical inconsistencies, and unnatural conduct; prosecution must prove guil....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.