IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI and Dr. ANSHUMAN, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.620 with 562 and 611 of 2016
(21.11.2024)
Abhishek Singh & Anr. (in 620)
Shankar Dayal Singh (in 562)
Ashok Singh & Anr. (in 611) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
(in all)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149 & 307/149 and Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Accused/appellants firing at the victims as a result of which three of the victims died and one PW 3 got injured – There are major contradictions, improvements, inconsistencies in the deposition of PW-3 and other prosecution witnesses – Thus, simply relying upon the deposition given by so called injured witness, conviction cannot be recorded – Most of the prosecution witnesses as well as the injured witness PW-3 deposed that initially took place at 'Shivala', whereas, some of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the incident took place at the door of the informant – Though dead bodies were found near the house of several independent witnesses but the witnesses examined are from the branch of one family and no independent witness has been examined – Prosecution has also failed to prove the exact place of occurrence – It is not merely that the defence has taken the plea of alibi but there is evidence of the I.O. (PW-9) that the accused Vinod Singh was not involved in the incident – Earlier version of the occurrence received by the I.O. not produced – Genesis of the occurrence could not be established – prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt – Appellants acquitted – Appeals allowed. (Paras 28.7, 28.10, 29, 30)
Brahm Swaroop Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 288 – Referred.
State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 (5) BLJ 78 (SC) : (2023) 7 SCR 134; Dilavar Hussain Vs. State of Gujarat, (1991) 1 SCC 253 – Relied.
Vipul M. Pancholi, J.—These appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment of conviction dated 20.05.2016 and order of sentence dated 27.05.2016, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-V, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.82/2012 (CIS No.47/15), arising out of Brahmpur P.S. Case No.38/12, whereby the court has convicted all the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, appellant Ashok Singh has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and appellants, namely, Shekhar Singh @ Chandrashekhar Singh, Abhishek Singh and Vinod Singh have also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) each for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, it will be recovered against them as revenue arrears. Appellants Shekhar Singh @ Chandrashekhar Singh, Abhishek Singh and Vinod Singh have also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) each for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, they have been sentenced to S.I. for three months each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:—
2.1. Fardbeyan of Awadhesh Tiwari came to be recorded on 30.01.2012 at 10:00 hours at village Kthar wherein the informant has stated that on 30.01.2012 at about 8.00 a.m., his nephew (Sadhu) Sanjay Tiwari was praying in the Shiva temple, east of the village, when Ashok Singh came to village Kathar and started abusing his nephew. In the meanwhile, there was a scuffle between the two and the trouble ended and both of them came back to their respective homes. In the meantime, Shekhar Singh, Abhishek Singh, Ashok Singh, Vinod Singh, and Shankar Dayal Singh came to his door armed with rifle and gun and started shooting at his family members in which Baban Tiwari @ Pintu Tiwari was shot in the mouth and he died on the spot, Mintu Tiwari and Sachidanand Tiwari were shot in the stomach and Munna Tiwari was shot in the thigh and he was sent to Dumraon hospital for treatment where Mintu Tiwari and Sachidanand Tiwari died and Munna Tiwari was sent to Sadar Hospital, Buxar for better treatment.
2.2. After registration of the formal FIR on the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, the Investigating Agency started investigation. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses, collected the documentary evidence and thereafter filed chargesheet against the appellants.
2.3. As the case was exclusively triable by court of sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same under Section 209 of the Code to the concerned sessions court where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No.82/12.
2.4. During course of trial, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Dr. Ram Kumar Gupta, PW-2 Mohan Tiwari, PW-3 Munna Tiwari, PW-4 Abhishek Tiwari, PW-5 Awadh Bihari Tiwari, PW-6 Awadhesh Tiwari, PW-7 Dr. Bhupendranath, PW-8 Dr. Ravi Bhushan Srivastava, PW-9 Ram Bilash Chaudhary, PW-10 Shashi Bhushan Mishra, PW-11 Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, PW-12 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, PW-13 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, PW-14 Sunil Ray, PW-15 Shiv Bihari Ram and PW-16 Paras Nath Yadav (declared hostile). The defence has also examined 5 witnesses, namely, DW-1 Umesh Singh, DW-2 Tejnarayan Singh, DW-3 Kamlesh Singh, DW-4 Kamal Singh and DW-5 Pankaj Singh. Besides the above, one court witness was also examined, namely, CW-1 Sudhir Kumar Singh. Thereafter further statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code came to be recorded. After conclusion of the trial, the
Brahm Swaroop vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
State through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Hemendhra Reddy
The conviction upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite the absence of independent witnesses, affirming the trial court's judgment.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Conviction based solely on testimonies of related witnesses is unsafe without independent corroboration, as evidenced by inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt leads to acquittal.
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.
Key legal principles established include the standards of eyewitness reliability and the requirements for proving possession of intent in conspiracy cases, emphasizing that absence of evidence negate....
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.