High Court dismissed an appeal challenging acquittal of the accused. The court found irreconcilable contradictions in witness evidence and lack of support in medical evidence regarding the time and manner of death, upholding the trial court's finding of acquittal.
Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the respondent upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.382 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -708 Year- 2013 Thana -SASARAM MUFFSIL District- SASARAM (ROHTAS)
=========================================================== 1. Ranjan Singh son of Bageshwari Singh, Resident of village- Kanhaipur, P.S.Sasaram (Mufasil), District- Rohtash
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Soni Shrivastava, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.K.Sinha, APP
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) Date: 07-09-2016
This is an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order, dated 29.02.2016, passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Sasaram, Rohtas, in Session Trial No. 650 of 2013, whereby the learned Court below has recorded acquittal of Respondent No.2. In the said trial, Respondent No.2 stood charged with the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
3
the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 29.10.2013, whereafter, on 03.05.2014, charges were framed against Respondent No.2 for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
“EXTERNAL EXAMINATION
1. Face-pale
2. Lacerated wound one inch in diameter x cavity deep, margin inverted and charring of skin around the wound right lateral side of chest ( wound of entry)
3. Lacerated wound two inch in diameter margin inverted into cavity deep over left arm pit ( wound of exit)
Note- On proving injury no.2 and 3 are communicating each other, hence injury no.2 is wound of entry and 3 is wound of exit.
INTERNAL EXAMINATION
1. Skull-Skull vault intact, brain and meaninges intact and pale.
2. Chest and neck-Trachea larynx intact in normal structure. 8 and 9 ribs right side fractured. 2 and 3 ribs fractured in left side. Right lung lacerated, heart intact and place. Both chamber of heart empty. Blood clots found in plural cavity. 3. Abdomen-Stomach empty, liver lacerated, both kidney intact and pale, spleen intact and place. Small intestine contains fluid and gas. Large intestine contains fikle matter and gas. Urniary bladder contains about 200 ml. Of urine. Blood clots found in abdominal cavity.
Cause of death - Shock and hemorrhage due to above noted injuries, which was caused by fire arm. Time elapse since death till postmortem done-06 to 24 hours approximately.
This postmortem Report is prepared by this witness in presence of both the members of the team. He
4
identified his own signature and the signature of team members on postmortem and bears his signature. Postmortem Report which is marked as ext.2.
In his cross examination he has also stated that whenever any injury caused by front side then it will not cause an injury on panjari. Whenever any injury caused by front side on chest then wound of exit in back, not in armpit. He has also stated that he has not mentioned in his postmortem report that injuries on the person of the deceased sufficient to cause death. He has not found any sign of treatment in dead body. He has also stated that if fire arm used in close range then gun powder will be found in wound and he did not found it from the wound. He has dot mentioned the direction of the wound. He has not mentioned the wearing cloths of the deceased. He has not found any sign of oozing of the blood. He has denied that his p.m. report is not scientific.”
5
be an eye-witness inasmuch as he had said, in his fardbeyan, that after the deceased had sustained injuries, he (the deceased) raised deep cry upon which several villagers including the informant came there and by that time, all the three accused persons had fled away. In his deposition at the trial, however, the informant claimed himself to be an eyewitness, who was present at the place of occurrence. P.W.1 (Sanjeet Singh) has also claimed, in his deposition, that he was also sitting in the Dallan of Shyam Bihari Singh, where the occurrence had taken place and he also claimed to be an eyewitness. In the fardbeyan of the informant, there is no mention of the fact that P.W.1 (Sanjeet Singh) was also present at the place of occurrence, nor is it there in the deposition of the informant at the trial. P.W.2 (Amit Kumar Singh) has also claimed to be an eye-witness, who was sitting in the Dallan of the said Shyam Bihari Singh. P.W.3 (Jai Mala Devi), in her deposition, has said that she was sitting with her husband in her house. She is mousee (aunt) of the deceased and she has also claimed, at the trial, to be an eye-witness. Though P. W. 3, in her deposition, specifically said that her husband, Shiv Shankar Singh, was also there with her, the said Shiv Shankar Singh was examined as Court Witness No.1, who did not say anything about the manner of occurrence in his deposition. Further, P.W.3 deposed that when the
6
occurrence took place place, she went to the place of occurrence, i.e., Dallan of Shyam Bihari Singh, but no one was there and the miscreants had fled away. Her deposition is in apparent contradiction with the evidence of other witnesses, who claimed that they were there at the place of occurrence, when the occurrence had taken place.
7
whereas the wound of exit has been found to be over left armpit.
| (I. A. Ansari, CJ) | ||
|---|---|---|
| ArunKumar/-c | (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) | |
| AFR/NAFR | ||
| CAV DATE | N/A | |
| UploadingDate | 29.09.2016. | |
| Transmission | 29.09.2016 | |
| Date |
ArunKumar/-c
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the high court should interfere with the acquittal of the respondent recorded by the session court due to contradictions in prosecution evidence.
Whether the trial court was correct in concluding that the medical evidence did not fully support the time and manner of the occurrence.
Whether the apparent material contradictions between the fardbeyan and deposition of prosecution witnesses warrant interference with the acquittal.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ranjan Singh
The State of Bihar
Bijay Singh
I. A. Ansari
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
