IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRA SHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA
Krishna Singh, son of Late Ramjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 778, 604, 771 of 2016
Decided on : 20-01-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 - Arms Act - Section 27 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(a), 134 – Offence of Murder - P.S. Case was lodged against under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder in night - In his fardbeyan which was recorded at village , his son has stated that at he heard a sound of firing and in meantime , his cousin brother, came running there and told him that have fired at his father - At that time was at his new house - He has further stated that his cousin brother has identified the accused persons in the torch light - He has seen gunshot injury on person of his father who was lying dead at his old house - Whether appellants were involved in killing, lapses during the investigation have certainly weakened prosecution case – Held, accused was found fleeing away carrying a weapon from place of occurrence is by itself not enough to raise a presumption on his culpability - Court hold that on basis of evidence, appellants cannot be convicted on charge of committing murder of Amar Singh - Prosecution has failed to prove charges against them and, therefore, conviction and sentence of appellant – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar J.
1. Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 15 of 2011 was lodged against Krishna Singh, Puneshwar Singh and Brij Kishore Singh under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Amar Singh in the night of 27.08.2011. In his fardbeyan which was recorded at 09:00 am on 28.08.2011 at village Serka, Satyalok Singh who is the son of Amar Singh has stated that at about 08:30 PM he heard a sound of firing and in the meantime Surendra Singh, his cousin brother, came running there and told him that Krishna Singh, Puneshwar Singh and Brij Kishore Singh have fired at his father - at that time Satyalok Singh was at his new house. He has further stated that his cousin brother has identified the accused persons in the torch light. He has seen gunshot injury on the person of his father who was lying dead at his old house. The accused persons were litigating a land dispute since last 8-9 years and they had a grudge against his father because he had made a complaint about irregularity in distribution of mid-day meal to the children. During the investigation, Deolal Singh and Bhaironath Singh who are the co-villagers stated before the police that they were told that Krishna Singh had shot dead Amar Singh. Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh who conducted the post-mortem examination on 28.08.2011 at 03:00 PM has found four lacerated wounds two corresponding wounds of entry and exit, one over right shoulder and another over left axilla.
2. The doctor has found the following injuries on the person of Amar Singh:
I. (i) Lacerated wound over right shoulder 1 cm x 1/2 cm margin inverted chest Cavity deep. Margin blackened wound of entry
(ii) Lacerated wound over right shoulder inverted, blackened of size 1.5 cm X 1/2 cm chest cavity deep about 1" above the wound no. 1 which is also wounded entry.
(iii) Lacerated wound over left axilla margin inverted size 1 cm x 1 cm with a metallic body pipping out of wound by wound of exit.
(iv) Lacerated wound over left axilla below wound no. (iii) about 1" with metallic body pipping out of the wound.
II. On dissection of chest right and left lung lacerated with chest cavity full of blood. Laceration of heart pericardial cavity full of blood.
3. A charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons and they were sent up for trial. In the trial the prosecution has examined seven witnesses - the informant is PW-5. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj has held that the prosecution has established the charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. However, the charge under section 27 of the Arms Act was not found proved against Puneshwar Singh and Brij Kishore Singh. In sessions Trial o. 325 of 20 12, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, with a default stipulation to undergo six months' imprisonment. Krishna Singh was convicted and sentenced to RI for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of the fine amount he shall undergo fur1her imprisonment of one month.
4. PW-l and PW-2 who are the co-villagers have turned hostile in the trial, they stated in the Court that their statement was not recorded by the police. Though PW-5 and PW-6 are not the eyewitnesses, PW-5 has fully supported PW-7 who is the only eyewitness in the case. PW-5 has narrated the events in the evening of 27.08.2011 when according to him he heard sound of bomb explosion. He has reiterated in the Court what he had stated in his fardbeyan. He said that PW-7 informed him that his father was murdered by gunshot and in the torch light he saw the accused persons fleeing away. PW-6 has stated that he heard sound of firing in the night of 27.08.20 II and next day morning he has gone to the house of PW-7 where he has seen the dead body of Amar Singh. He has further stated that he was informed that 2-3 persons had fired at Amar Sing
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Another v. State of Maharashtra " (1973) 2 SCC 793
Durbal v. State of UP" (2011) 2 SCC 676
Baleshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar" (1997) 7 SCC 219
Lahu Kamalakar Paril vs. State of Maharashtra" reported in (2013) 6 SCC 417
Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu" (2009) 9 SCC 152
SupremeToday
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.