The court ruled that convictions under serious charges require proof of intention, setting aside judgments due to insufficient evidence of such intent.

15th June 2023

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.

Barun Singh, Kishore Kumar Singh and Sanjiv Kumar Singh @ Sanjiv Kumar have challenged the judgment dated 4th May 2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2002 by filing separate Criminal Appeals vide Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 904 of 2023, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 905 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 906 of 2023.

2. B.S. City P.S. Case No.90 of 1999 was lodged against the appellants and unknown accused persons on the basis of the fardbeyan of Manoj Kumar which was recorded by the Inspector of Police of B.S.City Police Station on 20th March 1999 at about 02:00 hrs. at Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro. In his fardbeyan, the informant who was injured in the occurrence has stated that at around 08:45 PM in the evening of 19th March 1999 his neighbours Barun Singh and Kishore Kumar Singh came to his house and he went with them to the nearby Teraha (a tri-junction of roads). He saw that Sanjiv Kumar Singh was waiting there carrying a sword with which Barun Singh attacked him. So he tried to save himself and ran towards his house, when Barun Singh fired a shot which missed him. According to the informant, the reason for the occurrence was that he had advised Barun Singh not to blow whistle in the neighbourhood. After the investigation, a chargesheet was laid against the above-named accused persons and a common charge was framed against them under sections 341, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code . Barun Singh who is the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 906 of 2023 has been further charged under sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act . During the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom PW1 Pravin Kumar and PW4 Manoj Kumar who are real brothers have been projected as eyewitness.

3. As PW3, Dr. Bishambhar Das who clinically examined PW4 on 19th March 1999 at Bokaro General Hospital has observed three incised wounds on the person of PW4. He had also advised X-ray for different parts of the body of PW4.

4. The appellants have set up a defence that the informant and others assaulted them and in the scuffle Barun Singh has suffered two injuries on his thumb and in this connection counter case vide B.S. City P.S. Case No. 91 of 1999 was lodged by the brother of Barun Singh. In his written report which was given to the officer-in-charge of B.S. City Police Station on 20th March 1999, he has alleged that at around 09:00 PM in the evening of 19th March 1999 his neighbour and others assaulted his brother Barun Singh. To support the defence that Barun Singh has suffered injuries at the hands of PW4, Dr. Tripic Prasad Singh was examined as DW1 who has admitted in the Court that he examined Barun Singh in the morning of 20th March 1999 around 08:30 AM at the Casualty ward of Bokaro General Hospital. As DW1, the doctor has deposed in the Court that he found one incised wound over right thumb with haematoma over right dorsum aspect, one lacerated wound over left thumb, one lacerated wound over left hand's second finger, abrasion over left forearm and another abrasion over right forearm of Barun Singh. He also advised X-ray of the right hand of Barun Singh.

5. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro accepted the testimony of PW1 and PW4 and has rendered his opinion that the date, time and place of occurrence are established, and presence of the accused persons at the time and place of occurrence are the admitted facts. PW1 and PW4 have been found reliable and truthful and the trial Judge has accepted their testimony as eyewitness-account of the occurrence.

6. The learned 1st Additional Sessio