Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Puran Tiwary, S/o Sri Giriwar Tiwari - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 135 of 1995(R)
Decided On : 08-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 Part II - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 27 - Conviction for murder and use of firearm - Appellant convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; concurrent sentence for arms offence - Evidence from eyewitnesses established appellant's role in firing that caused death - Acquittal of co-accused due to contradictions in evidence does not extend to appellant - Premeditation inferred from use of firearm. (Paras 2, 9, 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Statement of accused - Denial of complicity in murder - Defence raised contradictions in prosecution evidence and lack of blood evidence - Court found prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 5, 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Sarjug Sao, who was shot during a quarrel involving multiple assailants. The incident stemmed from a dispute regarding access to the Post Office, leading to an armed confrontation. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction based on eyewitness testimony and the post-mortem report confirming death by firearm injury, rejecting the appellant's claims of contradictions in evidence. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitness accounts and whether the appellant's actions constituted premeditated murder or a lesser charge. (Paras 6, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the appellant's use of a firearm indicated premeditation, and the evidence sufficiently established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite the acquittal of co-accused. (Paras 9, 10)
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 21.09.1995 (sentence passed on 22.09.1995) passed by Sri Gopal Prasad, learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamu at Daltonganj, in S.T. No. 104/1990 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 27 Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Shiv Lochan Sao recorded on 17.06.1989, in which it has been stated that around 12:00 noon, Anil Sao had gone to the Post Office and Sanjay Sao had gone to the Public Distribution Shop to bring wheat. It has been alleged that Puran Tiwary (appellant) had told them as to why they disturb them when they go to the market at which, none of the two persons gave any response. It has been stated that at 6:00 PM Ranjit Sao returned back to his house from Meral and took Puran Tiwary towards his house to ask him about his conduct. After some time, an information was received that Puran Tiwary along with his men has surrounded Ranjit Sao in order to commit his murder. At this information, the informant, his son Binod Kumar and several villagers proceeded towards the said place. At around 6:30 PM, when they reached in front of the house of Sita Sao, they saw Puran Tiwary, Alok Dubey, Girija Tiwari, Ramadhar Dubey, Raja Dubey, Laxmi Dubey, Manoj Dubey, Dhebar Dubey, Chandradhar Dubey and Brijdhar Dubey coming and Puran Tiwary and Alok Dubey were armed with pistols. Lakshmi Dubey was armed with gadasa and the others were armed with lathis. The accused persons started committing assault at which, the informant and his son suffered injuries. In the meantime, Puran Tiwary fired a shot which hit the abdomen of the son of the informant Sarjug Sao which resulted in Sarjug Sao falling on the ground. The son of the informant was being taken on a cot to Garhwa Hospital and on the way he died.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Meral P.S. Case No. 32/89 was instituted. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No. 104/1990. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 148 and 302 IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case:
P.W.1 Ram Kishor Mukti has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-1.
P.W.2 Bajrang Bali Prasad has stated that on 17.06.1989 at6:00-6.30PM, he was going to Badhesar along with his brother Manoj and as they reached near the door of Sarjan Mia, they saw Ramadhar Dubey and Puran Tiwary coming and as soon as Ramadhar Dubey issued a threat, he and his brother fled away towards their house. On their raising a cry of alarm, Sarjug Sao and Binod came to the said place. At the same time, Alok Dubey, Raja Dubey, Lakshmi Dubey, Dhebar Dubey and Manoj Dubey came and started assaulting Sarjug Sao with lathi. When Sarjug did not fall down despite such assault, Ramadhar instigated Puran Tiwary to fire at Sarjug Sao at which, Puran Tiwary immediately shot at him. Sarjug Sao fell down due to the firearm injury. He thereafter, fled away from the place of occurrence.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had told the Police about Ramadhar Dubey ordering Puran Tiwary to fire. He and his brother Manoj were surrounded by the accused persons and assaulted with lathis. Sanjay and Binod had come to save them. Sarjug also had a lathi with him. Only one firing was made by Puran Tiwary fr
The use of a firearm in a murder indicates premeditation, and eyewitness testimony can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even if co-accused are acquitted.
Conviction for murder requires credible eyewitness testimony, which may include family members; inconsistencies do not inherently discredit such testimonies when corroborated by medical evidence.
Prosecution must prove assailant identity beyond doubt; unreliable nighttime eyewitness identification during sudden sleep attack, non-IO examination, no recoveries, weak motive justify acquittal und....
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.
Conviction under S. 308 – In order to convict a person for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, it must be proved that he has done some act with such intention or knowledge, that if by the act do....
Under such backdrop the conviction of the appellant under section 27 of Arms Act is maintained.
The requirement of corroborative eyewitness testimonies to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal convictions.
The distinction between intention and motive is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and the duty to separate evidence for each accused is essential in criminal cases.
The conviction under Sections 302 IPC and Arms Act was upheld based on corroborative evidence and the significance of prompt FIR lodging, affirming established motive and forensic linkage.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant inconsistencies and investigative lapses led to reasonable doubt in the evidence presented.
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
