http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 8

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1339-1340 of 1999

PETITIONER:

BIJOY SINGH & ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/04/2002

BENCH:

R.P. Sethi & D.M. Dharmadhikari

JUDGMENT:

(With Crl.A.No.1341/99)

J U D G M E N T

SETHI,J.

Though sad, yet it is a fact that people do not

hesitate in resorting to vengeance even on the unfortunate

deaths of their nears and dears. There is a tendency to

rope in as many people as possible for facing the trial

relating to the death or injuries to the unfortunate

victims. Sometimes it is over-enthusiasm and many a times

designed effort to harass the relations and friends of the

real culprits. It has been found that on occasions innocent

persons including aged, infirm, ladies and children are

booked for standing at the dock and remain confined in jails

till the pendency of the cases. Some are acquitted by the

trial court and many by the appellate courts but only after

their languishing in confinements for years. Such efforts

of unscrupulous survivors of the crime or the relations of

the victims invariably but unfortunately helps the real

culprits as it becomes difficult for the court to sift the

grain out of the chaff. Under such circumstances and in

view of the prevalent criminal jurisprudential system in the

country, the doctrine of presumption of innocence in favour

of the accused makes the justice itself a victim which

ultimately weakens the criminal justice dispensation system.

Be that as it may, an onerous duty is cast upon the criminal

courts in the country to ensure that no innocent is

convicted and deprived of his fundamental liberties.

However, in cases of group clashes and organised crimes,

persons beyond the screen, executing the crime should not be

allowed to get scot free. In cases involving number of

accused persons, a balance approach by the courts is

required to be insisted upon. Neither any innocent person

should be convicted nor a guilty acquitted under the cloak

and cover of the loose and liberal interpretations of the

statutory provisions and the technicalities of procedural

wrangles. In cases of arson and murder where large number

of people are accused of committing the crime, the courts

should be cautious to rely upon the testimony of witnesses

speaking generally and in an omnibus way without specific

reference to the accused or the role played by them.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 8

For the death of Vijay Singh aged 16 years and for

attempting to murder Sanuj Singh (PW5) 12 persons including

the appellants were tried for offences punishable under

Sections 302, 149, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section

27 of the Arms Act. All the accused belong to one clan and

very closely related to each other. The trial court

convicted all of them under Section 302, 307 read with

Section 149 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and

sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life under

Section 302 and 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section

27 of the Arms Act. No separate sentence was passed for the

offence under Section 307 in view of the life imprisonment.

Appeals filed by the accused persons were dismissed by the

High Court vide judgment impugned in this case. In these

appeals all the accused persons, except Awadhesh Singh (A-

11) have challenged the judgments of the courts below.

It was alleged by the prosecution that on the day of

Shravan Purnima falling on 25th August, 1991 at about 5

p.m. the deceased Vijay Singh along with Sanuj Singh (PW5)

had gone to Thakurbari situated at Tarawanna Khanda of

Village Dhanawana for offering puja in the temple on the

occasion of Raksha Bandan. While they were in the temple,

all the accused persons, armed with fire arms, came firing

from all the directions. On the extortion of Ram Nandan

Singh (A1), Jawahar Singh (A-2) fired from his gun at Vijay

Singh who was injured and fell near the well outsi