Double-murder conviction appeal: the appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for killing two persons and injuring three with a pasuli. Relying on injured eyewitnesses and consistent medical evidence, the High Court found defective investigation immaterial and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
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.465 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2014 Thana- HUSSAINGANJ District- Siwan
======================================================
Sharma Ram Son of Ramaji Ram Resident of Village- Jurkan, P.S.Hussainganj, District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Raghav Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY)
Date : 18-08-2023
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 2/32
appellant has further been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for making attempt to commit murder of injured Ramashanker Ram along with a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, ten years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for making attempt to commit murder of injured Bacchi Kumari and ten years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for making attempt to commit murder of injured Manjit Kumar (informant) for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 3/32
deceased) came to rescue the informant (PW-2) but they were also abused. The informant's mother Gangiya Devi (since deceased) came and started to pacify the scuffle. Meanwhile, the appellant came with pasuli and pierced into the chest of informant's mother Gangiya Devi (since deceased). The appellant also pierced pasuli upon the back of informant's brother Santosh Kumar (since deceased). It is also claimed by the informant that appellant hit the informant's father (PW-1) as a result of which he sustained cut injury at four to five places. It is also claimed that all the three injured fell down on the ground and began to scream. It is also stated by the informant (PW-2) that appellant also assaulted on the informant's right hand due to which he sustained injury on hand. Thereafter informant ran towards the field and began to cry. On the arrival of villagers appellant and other fled away. It is asserted by the informant that when he reached at his house, his mother Gangiya Devi had died. The informant's brother Santosh Kumar Ram also died after being arrived in Sadar Hospital. It is claimed by the informant that informant's mother and brother have been concertedly killed by the appellant and others under conspiracy. It is further claimed by the informant that prior to this occurrence, family members of informant were assaulted by the appellant and others which was reconciled through panchayati.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 4/32
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 5/32
Prosecution has relied upon following documentary
evidence on record:-
Ext. 1- Signature of informant on fardbeyan.
Ext. 2- Signature of informant on carbon copy of inquest report of deceased.
Ext. 3- Postmortem report of deceased Gangiya Devi.
Ext. 4- Postmortem report of deceased Santosh Kumar
Ram.
Ext. 5-Injury report of injured Ramashankar Ram.
Ext. 6-Injury report of injured Bacchi Kumari.
Ext. 7-Injury report of injured Manjit Kumar Ram
(informant).
Ext. 8- Signature of PW-4 on fardbeyan.
Ext. 9-Signature of PW-4 on the carbon copy of inquest report of deceased Gangiya Devi.
Ext. 9/1- Signature of Jitendra Yadav on the carbon copy of inquest report of deceased Gangiya Devi.
Ext. 10- Signature of PW-4 on the inquest report of deceased Santosh Yadav.
Ext. 11- Fardbeyan.
Ext. 12-Signature of the then S.H.O. Hussainganj P.S. Ashish Kumar Mishra on the formal FIR.
Ext. 13-Carbon copy of the inquest report of deceased Gangiya Devi.
Ext. 14-Carbon copy of the inquest report of deceased Santosh Kumar Ram.
Ext. 15-Seizure list of Pasuli.
Ext. 16-Injury letter of Manjit Kumar Ram prepared by police officer Baban Tiwari.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 6/32
Ext. 17- Injury letter of Ramashankar Ram prepared by police officer Baban Tiwari.
Ext. I (Material Exhibit)-Pasuli of iron.
Defence has also relied upon following documentary evidence on record which has been marked as under:-
Ext. 18-Signature of DW-1 Jitendra Yadav on the carbon copy of inquest report of deceased Gangiya Devi.
Ext. 19- Signature of DW-1 Jitendra Yadav alongwith signature of Abhishek Yadav on the search cum seizure list.
Defence of the appellant and others as gathered from the
line of cross examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total denial.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 7/32
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that inquest report was prepared earlier than fardbeyan. Learned counsel further submitted that inquest report itself indicates that same was prepared at 11.30 PM and FIR was lodged at 11:45 PM on the same day. PW-2 who is informant of the case is one of the witnesses of inquest report and it can easily be concluded that being a witness of inquest report, he was aware of the fact regarding nature of injury of the deceased and later on, being informant of this case recorded the fardbeyan and framed accusation against the appellant as there was no trigger point as to why the scuffle took place leading to death of two persons, namely, Gangia Devi and Santosh Kumar Ram. In this way, the facts narrated by the informant in fardbeyan is totally afterthought and imaginary in nature. Learned counsel further submitted that no blood was found at the place of occurrence. No blood was found at pasuli and pasuli was recovered from the house so manner of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution and no motive behind the occurrence has been proved in the light of given facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that not a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 8/32
single independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. All the witnesses are family members which creates doubt regarding the genuineness of prosecution story. He further submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., no question was asked regarding recovery of incriminating material from the house of the appellant which caused prejudice to the appellant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has cited a decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 2207.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 9/32
sustained by both of the deceased as both of them sustained sharp cut injuries and injuries found on the dead body of deceased persons are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In this way, version of PW-2 is totally consistent with the postmortem report as opined by the doctor regarding death of two deceased. From perusal of deposition of PW-2 (informant), it is crystal clear that besides informant, other injured persons are PW1 (informant's father) and PW-6 Bacchi Kumari. In the initial version of story of prosecution, it has already been narrated that PW-1 Ramashanker Ram sustained cut injuries at four to five places by the act of the appellant as fardbeyan is the initial version regarding the occurrence and same is quite evident from the injury report of PW-1 Ramashanker Ram (Ext. 5) which clearly corroborates the place of injury upon the body of victim caused by sharp cutting weapon. In this way, presence of PW-1 at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted regarding the story of prosecution. PW-1 has also supported the time of occurrence, place of occurrence and manner of occurrence and he has totally corroborated the version of PW-2 (informant). He further submitted that PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 have also supported and corroborated the story of prosecution regarding the manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and time of occurrence. PW-7
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 10/32
who is investigating officer of the case, has identified the place of occurrence. PW-3 who was head of the medical board conducted the postmortem upon two dead bodies namely, Gangia Devi and Santosh Kumar Ram. The medical board headed by PW-3 also examined three injured, namely, Ramashanker Ram (PW-1), Manjit Kumar Ram (PW-2) and Bacchi Kumari (PW-6). Medical evidence has corroborated the story of prosecution regarding place of injury, manner of injury, nature of injury including weapon used in committing the said injuries. Time of death assessed by the doctor was within 6 to 24 hours as same is totally consistent with the story of prosecution regarding the time of occurrence. In this way, whole prosecution witnesses i.e. from PW-1 to PW-7 are quite intact and there is no reason to disbelieve the version of prosecution witnesses regarding the manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and time of occurrence. Lastly, he submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court is quite tenable and hence, no interference is required.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 11/32
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 12/32
is quite intact and nothing has been elucidated in cross examination to make dent in the story of prosecution. In this way, he is reliable witness as he is the sufferer himself and thus, there would be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the prosecution, or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain to protect the real culprit. Keeping in view the importance of the fact regarding occurrence as stated by this witness first in the point of time while recording fardbeyan has been supported by this witness during adducing evidence in the court. In this way, PW-2 has specifically and categorically supported the version of story of prosecution and this witness can be categorized as a star witness of this case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 13/32
appellant. This witness has also stated that informant (PW-2) and Bacchi Kumari (PW-6) have also been assaulted by the appellant. This witness has also supported the time of occurrence, manner of occurrence and place of occurrence. Nothing is found in the cross examination of this witness to discredit the reliability of said witness.
(External Appearance) External Injuries:-
(i) Both eyes and mouth opened and bleeding from
nostril.
(ii) Rigor mortis was present in all four limbs. Injuries:-
(i) Incised wound of size 1 and 1/2"x 1/2"x 1 and 1/2" deep on left back of scalp
(ii)Incised wound 1"x1/2"x chest cavity deep on left mid subclavicular fossa.
On dissection:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 14/32
Skull Bone and brain intact, no haemotoma.
Neck and chest-Chest bone intact, haemotoma of size 10" x 10" underneath muscle of left mid neck.
Upper Chest-Blood and clot present on left chest cavity. Incised wound 1/2"x 1/2"x 1" deep on mid zone of left lung. Right lung intact.
Heart-All chamber empty, big haemotoma size 5"x 10" in front of mid thoracic spine (3rd to 5th spine), incised wound 1/2"x 1/2"x vessel deep i.e. injury of arch of arota.
Abdomen- All visceral organs pale and intact.
Stomach-Semi digested food particles present. Small intestines-Fluid and gas present.
Large intestines- feaces and gass present
Urinary bladder-empty.
Time elapsed since death- within 6 to 24 hours.
Death due to haemorrhage and shock caused by above
mentioned injuries due to heavy sharp substance (instrument) and injuries found on the dead body of Gangia Devi are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. This injury report is in his pen and signature and mark as Ext-3.
On the same day i.e. 17.04.2014 at 7:50 AM postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Santosh Kumar Ram and found following ante mortem injuries:-
(External Appearance) External Injuries:- Both eyes and mouth closed. Rigor mortis present in all four limbs.
Injuries:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 15/32
(i) incised wound 2” x ½” x cavity deep on left 2” paravertebral region at T9-10th (thoracic spine).
(ii)Incised wound 2½” x ½” x ½” deep left lower third
of arm.
On dissection:-
Skull-Bone and menonges intact. Neck – No injury, Chest-Bony cage intact, left chest of cavity-full of blood. Incised wound ½” x ½” x ½” on left lower zone of lung. Right lung pale and intact. Heart- All chambers empty. Haemotoma – 5” x 5” in front of thoracic spine 7th & 8th including injuries (incised wound) – 1/3” x ½” x vessel deep in venacava and associated artery, Abdomen – All visceral organs intact. Stomach – semi digested food particles present. Small intestine-food and gases present. Large intestine – feaces and gases present. Urinary bladder – partially full.
Time elapsed since death within 6 to 24 hours. Death due to above mentioned injuries due to hemorrhage & shock caused by heavy sharp cutting substance. The injuries found on the dead body of Santosh Kumar Ram is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The postmortem report is in his presence & signature and same is marked as Ext-4.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 16/32
upon body of the deceased are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and Ext. 3 (postmortem report of Gangiya Devi) and Ext. 4 (postmortem report of Santosh Kumar Ram) completely corroborate the story of prosecution.
Besides conducting two postmortem, the medical board has also examined Ramashankar Ram on 16.04.2014 at 10:05 PM and found following injuries:-
(i) incised wound – 2” x 1” x ½” deep over left upper
arm.
(ii) incised wound 4” x 2” x muscle deep on left mid
forearm.
(iii) incised wound 2½” x ½” x ½” deep 1” above left elbow joint.
(iv) incised wound 1½” x 1” x 1/2” deep over back of elbow.
(v) Incised wound – 2” x ½” x 1” deep with diffused swelling & haemotoma on left mid axillary line of 12th & 13th intercostal space.
(vi) Incised wound 1” x ½” x ½” deep 2” left para umblical region with profusion of fat.
Nature of injuries – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 opinion reserved.
Injuries found on the person of Ramashankar Ram are
caused by sharp cutting weapon. It has also been opined that if the investigation is not submitted within three months & six months, the nature of injuries may be treated as simple in nature. The injury report is in his pen and signature and the same is marked as Ext. 5.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 17/32
On the same day, the doctor examined Bacchi Kumari and noted following injuries:-
i. incised wound ½” x ½” x ½” deep left upper part of
arm.
ii. incised wound ½” x ½” x ½” deep over left flank. iii. complain of bodyache.
Nature of injury:- 1, 2 & 3 opinion reserved
injury no. 1 & 2 is caused by sharp cutting substance and injury no. 3 is caused by hard & blunt substance.
Age of injury – within four hours.
It has also been opined that if the medical investigation advise is not received, the nature of injuries would be treated as simple in nature. The injury report is in his pen and signature and the same is marked as Ext. - 6.
On the same day the doctor examined Manjeet Kumar and noted following injuries:-
(i) incised wound – 6” x 2½” x ½” deep right lower third forearm.
(ii) superficial and abrasion – 1” x 1” over mid right forearm.
Nature :- injury no. i and ii are simple and caused by sharp cutting substance.
Age of injuries within two hours.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 18/32
This injury report is in his pen and signature and the same is marked as Ext. 7.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 19/32
eliminated two persons of informant's family who are informant's mother Gangia Devi and informant's brother Santosh Kumar Ram and the intention of appellant has been gathered from the material available on record that apart from death of two persons, there are three injured persons and medical evidence supports the injuries that have been inflicted upon the injured like PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 by the act of the appellant through pasuli which have already been narrated in the fardbeyan clearly focusing upon the authenticity of initial version of story of prosecution and same is consistently found in the deposition of all prosecution witnesses. In the present case, the appellant hit five persons by means of pasuli in which two persons died and remaining persons saved as being injured witness. On the basis of material available on record, it cannot be denied that injured persons are sufferer of the said occurrence and the act of the appellant clearly denotes that there was intention to kill remaining injured persons and the facts as mentioned in the fardbeyan and deposition of PW-2 go to show that if the villagers did not arrive at the place of occurrence, result would have been different and in the case of said nature, impossibility cannot be a defence as intention is clear cut. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 20/32
is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt-act in execution thereof.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 21/32
examination nothing is found to disbelieve the version of this witness.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 22/32
In this respect, deposition of all prosecution witnesses are quite intact and unimpeachable.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 23/32
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 24/32
relevant time. In this way, he is hearsay witness and hence, his evidence cannot be relied upon.
In this way DW-1 to DW-4 are not eye witness of the occurrence and hence, their version cannot be relied upon.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 25/32
injured and their presence at the place of occurrence cannot be disbelieved. In this way, all the factual witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. PW-3 who is doctor has also corroborated the story of prosecution. PW-7 who is I.O. of the case has categorically and specifically supported the story of prosecution by identifying the place of occurrence. Even though some discrepancy regarding investigation has been found but whole prosecution story cannot be thrown on the laches of I.O.
In Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and another reported in AIR 2012 SC 37 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at para 10(ii) as follows:-
"10 (ii). This Court has consistently held that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The timehonoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 26/32
ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence."
In Brahm Swaroop and another v. State of U.P. , reported in AIR 2011 SC 280 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 22 of the judgment held as follows:
"22. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness."
In Ranjit Singh and others v. State of Madhya
Pradesh , reported in AIR 2011 SC 255 , the Hon'ble Supreme court at para 17 of the judgment held as follows:-
"17. Under the Indian Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses which is not trustworthy would not be enough to sustain the conviction."
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 27/32
(a. An intention or knowledge relating to commission of murder and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 28/32
(b. Doing of an act towards it.
For the purpose of Section 307 IPC, what is the material is the intention or knowledge, and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The Section clearly contemplates an act which is done with the intention of causing death but which fails to bring intended consequence on account of initiation on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the cause must be such as a necessary to constitute a murder. In absence of intention or knowledge which is a necessary ingredient of Section 307 IPC, there can be no offence of attempt to murder.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Imrat and another reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 558 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 11 of the judgment observed as follows:-
"11. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof."
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 29/32
In Lachman Singh v. State of Haryana reported in
(2006) 10 SCC 524 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 13 of the judgment observed as follows:-
"13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof."
In Sadakat Kotwar and another v. The State of
Jharkhand passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2021 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para 4.1 as follows:-
"4.1. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions nobody can enter into the mind of the accused and his intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of the injury caused. Considering the case on hand
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 30/32
on the aforesaid principles, when the deadly weapondagger has been used, there was a stab injury on the stomach and near the chest which can be said to be on the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused, it is rightly held that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 IPC.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 31/32
criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is crystal clear that there are three injured persons who sustained injury by the act of the appellant. In the light of discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, the intention of the appellant is clear that he has already eliminated two persons of informant's family and further attempt made by the appellant clearly shows that he wanted to eliminate remaining injured persons i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 which has already been discussed in foregoing paragraphs. The contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor is quite forceful. So far as number of injuries, place of injury, weapon used in causing injury are concerned, opinion of doctor is quite consistent in this respect. The informant himself has stated that he ran away in the field and villager came and appellant and others fled away. Had the villager not been arrived at the place of occurrence, the result would have been different.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.465 of 2017 dt.18-08-2023 32/32
intention of the appellant has been proved with regard to commit the offence under Sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
shahzad/-
| AFR/NAFR | AFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| Uploading Date | 23.08.2023 |
| Transmission Date | 23.08.2023 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant's conviction for murder (S.302) and attempt to murder (S.307) based on injured eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence could be sustained.
Whether laches in investigation, including delayed fardbeyan vis-a-vis inquest and unrecovered blood-stained material, warranted acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
AIR 2000 SC 2207Distinguished¶21
Allarakha K. Mansuri vs State of GujaratRelied on¶20
2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 519
Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and anotherRelied on¶28
AIR 2012 SC 37 · Who else cites this
Brahm Swaroop and another v. State of U.P.Relied on¶28
AIR 2011 SC 280 · Who else cites this
Ranjit Singh and others v. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶28
AIR 2011 SC 255 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Imrat and anotherRelied on¶32
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 558 · Who else cites this
Lachman Singh v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶32
(2006) 10 SCC 524 · Who else cites this
Sadakat Kotwar and another v. The State of JharkhandRelied on¶32
Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2021
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Sharma Ram
The State of Bihar
Ashutosh Kumar
Alok Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
