2023 Supreme(Pat) 1432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Vipul M. Pancholi, Chandra Shekhar Jha, JJ.
Ranjeet Kumar Jha @ Ranjeet Jha S/O Sri Shambhu Nath Jha - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.643 of 2013, CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 528 of 2013, CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 591 of 2013, CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 608 of 2013, CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 730 of 2013
Decided On : 19-10-2023
For the Appellant :Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP
Conviction requires credible eyewitnesses and corroborative evidence, including dying declarations, to substantiate charges of homicide and related offenses.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 307, 120
(B), 201 - Arms Act - Section 27 - Appellants convicted of multiple murders and other offences, leading to life imprisonment; fines imposed with imprisonment in default - Convictions hinged on eyewitness accounts linking defendants to the crime scene, supported by motives associated with business rivalry - Dying declarations established the identity of the assailants - The defense's claims of alibi and false implications were duly dismissed. (Paras 1-41)
(B) Evidence and Witness Credibility - The court affirmed that testimonies from family members cannot be summarily dismissed as interested witnesses if reliable and trustworthy. (Paras 36-37)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and initial factual background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. outline of trial proceedings and evidentiary framework. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments relating to identification and witness testimonies. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's analysis of witness reliability and credibility. (Para 12 , 33 , 36) |
| 5. establishment of factual circumstances leading to conviction. (Para 31) |
| 6. court's decision affirming lower court's order. (Para 40 , 41) |
| 7. final orders and implications of appeals. (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
The present appeals have been filed by the appellants-convicts under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) assailing the judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2013 and order of sentence dated 04.06.2013, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial Nos.288 of 2009, 252 of 2010, 862 of 2008 and 548 of 2010, arising out of Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No.214 of 2006, whereby appellants Mintu Singh @ Dhruvnath Parasar and Ranjeet Jha have been found guilty under Sections 302 , 307, 120(B) and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) as well as Section 27 of the ARMS ACT and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 120(B) of the IPC and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they have to undergo RI for five years. Appellants Mintu Singh @ Dhruvnath Parasar and Ranjeet Jha have also been found guilty under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment fine, they have to undergo RI for two years. Appellants Mintu Singh @ Dhruvnath Parasar and Ranjeet Jha have further been found guilty under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years. So far as appellants, namely, Sidhnath Parasar, Vinay Kumar Sharma and Gauri Shankar Singh are concerned, they have been found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120(B) IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they have to undergo RI for one year. All the sentences are directed to run separately.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:
“Fardbeyan of Gajendra Dubey came to be recorded by SHO Sudhir Kumar Singh at the residence of the informant on 10.12.2006 at 09:00 p.m. As per the fardbeyan, when the informant was on his way to a party to the house of the local MLC, he got a call from his nephew, namely, Sonu Kumar stating that three unknown persons came to his house and asked to open the gate by stating that they are men of Ranveer from Punaura. All the three persons entered into the house and started firing upon Satyendra Dubey (brother of the informant), Kishun Dubey (son of the informant), Pankaj Thakur and Manoj Thakur. All the aforesaid persons sustained injuries and were admitted under care of Dr. Virendra Kumar. The informant thereafter directly rushed to the said nursing home and then shifted them to SKMCH, Gaya wherein the brother Satyendra Dubey and son Kishun Dubey of the informant succumbed to the injuries. The other two persons, namely, Pankaj Thakur and Manoj Thakur were under medical supervision in the hospital. On being questioned, Manoj Thakur and Pankaj Thakur also stated that three accused entered the house projecting themselves as men of Ranveer from Punaura and started arguing and said that Choudhary Ji had sent them. Those three persons were Shyam Sundar Pathak @ Vinod @ Mannu (page torn) and Ranjeet Kumar Jha. Thereafter the accused persons started firing from the firearms which they were carrying. One of the assailants also sustained injury in the said firing. During hulla, the nearby people gathered and took the injured persons to the hospital. It is further stated in the fardbeyan that thereafter the informant came to his house from SKMCH. He found the dead body of a young p