IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and JITENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 108 of 2021
(12.11.2024)
Brij Bihari Ray ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 307 – Murder, Attempt to murder and rioting – Common object – Appeal against acquittal – There are material contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses on material points, like genesis and manner of occurrence – Doctor who conducted autopsy of deceased has not been examined – No formal witness has been examined to bring post-mortem report or any injury report of deceased on record by making such reports as exhibits – In fardbeyan, informant has never stated about any assault by any lady accused by means of lathi – Oral evidence of general witnesses is not sufficient to prove homicidal death on account of alleged assault – It is only by a witness, expert in medical science, can opine regarding nature of injury and whether death of deceased was caused by such injury – But there is no such medical evidence on record and prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts homicidal death on account of alleged injury – There is enmity between prosecution and accused side and on account of such enmity, false implication of Respondents cannot be ruled out – There is no requirement to interfere in impugned judgment of acquittal for want of any illegality or infirmity in it – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 23, 25, 30 to 33)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – In case of appeal against acquittal, principles required to be applied by Appellate Court are drastically different from those which are applied in case of appeal against conviction – Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine reasons which impelled lower courts to acquit accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that conclusion reached by Lower Court that guilt of person has not been proved is unreasonable – In case of acquittal, presumption of his innocence is reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by Trial Court and if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, appellate court should not disturb finding of acquittal recorded by Trial Court. (Paras 16 to 21)
Jitendra Kumar, J.—The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.01.2020 passed by learned Fast Track Court- II, Bhojpur at Ara, in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 1997, arising out of Ara Mufassil P.S. Case No. 59 of 1997, whereby the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted of all the charges as framed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution Case
2. The prosecution case as emerging from the fardbeyan of the informant/Munnilal Rai to Police Officer of Ara, Muffasil Police Station on 12.05.1997 at 7:30 AM at his door is that yesterday dated 11.05.1997 at 7:30 AM, there was altercation with Munishankar Rai and Srinivas Rai @ Malik Rai. In course of this altercation, Srinivas Rai, Nand Ji Rai and Anil Rai, who were carrying lathies in their hands, and Ashok Rai, who was carrying pieces of bricks, assaulted Munishankar Rai and Shivshankar Rai as well as Dudhnath Rai and badly injured them. All three injured persons got unconscious and fell down at their door. On raising hulla, when co-villagers Ganesh Yadav, Bilash Yadav and ladies of his family were taking the injured persons to hospital for their treatment, they were again assaulted by Rita Kumari, Ful Kumari, Dulari Devi, Jhanjharu Devi by pieces of bricks from the roof of the house of Srinivas, causing injury on the chest of Dudhnath Rai and oozing blood from his mouth. Munishankar Rai and Shivshankar Rai also got injury on their head. Those persons were also taken to Sadar Hospital, Ara. The condition of Dudhnath Rai and Munishankar Rai was found to be serious by the Doctor at Ara Hospital and hence, they were referred to Patna and were taken to Patna for treatment. Soon thereafter, it was informed by Gopal Rai that Dudhnath Rai had died. It has been also mentioned by the informant that at the time of altercation regarding plucking of mangoes at 7:30 AM on 10.05.1997, Dudhnath Rai was not present at home. However, the matter was settled. But when Dudhnath Rai came back home next day, the occurrence had taken place on account of plucking of mangoes.
Factual Background
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No. 59 of 1997 was registered on 12.05.1997 against eight accused persons including the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 337 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Hence, Sessions Trial bearing No. 341 of 1997 commenced. Charges were framed under Sections 307/149, 302/149 and Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and against accused Nand Ji Rai and additional charge under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed. During trial, three accused persons, namely, Nand Ji Rai, Sri Nivas Rai and Dinanath Rai died and hence, trial was conducted only against respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
5. During trial, the following eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution:—
(i) P.W. 1 :- Munishankar Rai
(ii) P.W.2 :- Rameshwar Rai
(iii) P.W. 3 :- Munnilal Rai (Informant)
(iv) P.W. 4 :- Sunita Devi
(v) P.W. 5 :- Singhasani Devi
(vi) P.W. 6 :- Brij Bihari Rai
(vii) P.W. 7 :- Sheoshankar Rai
(viii) P.W.8 :- Manju Singh (I.O.)
6. The prosecution also brought on record the following documentary evidence:—
(i) Ext.-1- Signature of Munishankar Rai on the fardbeyan
(ii) Ext.-1/1- Signature of Munilal Rai on the fardbeyan
(iii) Ext.-1/2- Signature of Shivshankar Rai on statement given to the Danapur Police Station
(iv) Ext.-2- Signature of Brij Bihari Ram on the inquest report
(v) Ext.-2/1- Signature of Ram Badan Singh on the inquest report
(vi) Ext.-3- Complete fardbeyan
(vii) Ext.-4- F.I.R.
(viii) Ext.-5- Seizure List.
7. Ext.-1 to 2 were exhibited with objection, whereas Ext.-3, 4 and 5 were exhibited without objection.
Statements under Section 313 Cr.PC.
8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, respondent Nos. 2 to 4/Accused were e
Appellate courts interfere with acquittal only if patently perverse or ignoring material evidence; trial court's reasonable view, considering double presumption of innocence, not disturbed despite co....
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to prove guilt, especially in cases of acquittal.
The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless the prosecution's evidence conclusively proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, affirming the presumption of innocence.
The judgment underscores the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the limited scope of appellate review in acquittal appeals.
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.