Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and Smt. SONI SHRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 334 of 1995
(19.8.2025)
Raj Narayan Singh & Anr. ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302/BNS, 2023 – Section 103(1), 201, IPC/238 BNS & Section 27 Arms Act, 195 – Brother of the deceased (appellant No. 1) firing at the neck of the deceased resulting in his death – Dispute over property – Wife of the appellant no. 1, who is appellant no. 2, trying washing of the blood from the place of occurrence – P.W.-1 and PW-2, the eye witnesses to the occurrence, have consistently stated that after father-in-law of the informant along with the son and husband of the informant came back from the Court and reached the veranda of the third floor of the house in question, quarrel took place in between the appellant no. 1 and the deceased husband of the informant with regard to the shop and appellant no. 1 fired gun shot from his licensed gun at the neck of the deceased – PM report corroborates the fact that the deceased has died on account of fire arm injury – Thus the witnesses have proved not only the mode and manner of occurrence but also the date, time and place of occurrence – taking into account the overall perspective of the case, the evidence led by the prosecution is cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliable – Guilt of the appellants stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts – However, the present case cannot be described as a murder but it would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, since it is evident from the evidence led in the present case that the overt act engaged in by the appellant no. 1, resulting in death of the deceased took place at the spur of the moment in a heat of passion on account of heated verbal spat without any pre-meditated mind – Thus, the clear intent needed to prove culpable homicide amounting to murder has not been proved – Regarding appellant no. 2, only allegation against her is having washed the blood fallen on the veranda with an intention to erase evidence – However, neither the blood nor the bucket much less broom used to wash the blood were seized and the seizure of blood mixed with water not mentioned in the case diary and nor exhibited – Conviction of appellant no. 2 set aside – Case of appellant falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 and the same would come under purview of Section 304 Part-I and his sentence reduced to 10 years – Appellant No. 1 to serve his remaining period of sentence – Appeal partly allowed. (Paras 31, 32 and 33 to 36, 38 and 39)
Key Points: - The death resulted from a shooting during a sudden quarrel over property partition, held to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4, Section 300 (!) (!) . - Appellant no. 2, who washed blood at the scene, was acquitted due to lack of evidence proving complicity or intent to destroy evidence (!) . - Appellant no. 1 was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Part-I of Section 304 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, with the Arms Act conviction upheld but no separate sentence awarded (!) (!) .
Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.1995 by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Ara in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 1994 (arising out of Arrah Nawada P.S. Case No. 144 of 1993), whereby and whereunder the appellant no. 1 has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act while the appellant no. 2 has been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. By the order of sentence dated 16.08.1995, the appellant no. 1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the IPC with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof he has been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month as also he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. As far as appellant no. 2 is concerned, she has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 201 of the IPC with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default thereof she has been further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days.
2. The short facts of the case are that the fardbeyan of Smt. Dharamsheela Devi, wife of the deceased Ajab Singh (brother of the appellant no. 1) was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police Shrikant Upadhyaya, P.S. Arrah Nawada, District-Bhojpur on 10.09.1993 at Tribhuani Kothi at about 15:00 hours. In the fardbeyan, the informant has stated that on 10.09.1993 at about 02:00 p.m. in the day time her father-in-law said that he would get registry done in the name of both the brothers upon which husband of the informant said that on the ground floor towards the southern side there are nine shops, hence the dispute should be resolved here itself otherwise it will travel to the Court, whereupon quarrel started taking place. The brother-in-law of the informant, namely Raj Narayan Singh (appellant no. 1) said that under no circumstances he would give the shops situated towards the south side since he has got them constructed by his own money and then on being agitated, he gave a fist blow on the husband of the informant. Thereafter, the husband of the informant, upon freeing himself from the grip of the appellant no. 1, went to the Court where her father-in-law had gone for seeking opinion regarding partition from the advocate. The husband of the informant had then returned back alongwith her father-in-law and in his presence, the brother-in-law of the informant, i.e. Raj Narayan Singh (appellant no. 1) said that under no circumstances he would give the shops situated on the ground floor towards the southern side, even if he has to engage in bloodshed. Thereafter, the husband of the informant said that the partition should be done properly and he should at least get two shops out of the nine shops, whereafter the dispute escalated and her younger sister-in-law, namely Shakuntala Devi (appellant no. 2) started shouting and saying that even his father had got no courage to take any shop from them.
3. It has been further stated by the informant that she had then come out of her room to quell the dispute, when the brother-in-law of the informant, namely Raj Narayan Singh, in a fit of anger had gone to his room and brought the licensed gun of her father-in-law which had been kept in the room of the appellant no. 1 by his father and then he had put the gun near the neck of the husband of the informant, namely Ajab Singh and fired gun shot with the intention to kill him. As soon as the husband of the informant was hit by gunshot, he fell down and got smeared with blood. Thereafter, the sister-in-law of the informant, namely Shakuntala Devi had brought a bucket full of water and with the intention of erasing the evidence started washing the blood,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between 'culpable homicide amounting to murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 of the Indian Pen....
Point of Law : Injury by accused inflicted by him is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death or not, must be determined in each case on the basis of facts and circumstances.
Under such backdrop the conviction of the appellant under section 27 of Arms Act is maintained.
: : (1) Absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of accused. (2) Circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead t....
The court determined that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II due to lack of intent, modifying the conviction from murder under Section 302.
When evidence of eye-witnesses are not trust worthy to believe, then motive place an important role to prove guilt of accused.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
