Allowed

Dinesh Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC5 Oct 2023CR. APP (DB)/468/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of two appellants, Dinesh and Ajit Tiwari, for murder. The judgment acquitted them after finding the sole eye witness' testimony unreliable and a motive could not be proved, noting post-mortem injuries could result from falling in a well.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted; Dinesh Tiwari set at liberty; Ajit Tiwari's bail liabilities cancelled.

Dinesh Tiwari Vs The State Of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.468 of 2015

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2007 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Dinesh Tiwari Son of Late Bhagwat Tiwari, R/o Vill. - Sour, P.S. - Warsaliganj, District - Nawada.

¶5

Ajit Tiwari, S/o Ramadhin Tiwari, R/o Vill - Rupoh, P.S. Kawakol, District - Nawada.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Amresh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.A.K. Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY)

¶11

Date : 05-10-2023

¶12

Before beginning the discussion in the present appeal, it is necessary to state that one of the appellants/Ajit Tiwari has claimed his juvenility on the date of the occurrence. A Co-ordinate Division Bench vide order dated 22.06.2017 directed the Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada to enquire into the claim of the appellant as per law after noticing the informant of the present case. In pursuance of order dated 22.06.2017, the Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada held enquiry with regard to the claim of juvenility of appellant/Ajit Tiwari. The Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada reported that the appellant/Ajit Tiwari was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence i.e. 26.07.2007 as per

¶13

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 2/15

¶14

statutory provision and on the basis of said enquiry report based on relevant statutory provision, co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2018 granted bail to him.

¶15

Since the appellant/Ajit Tiwari (juvenile) has also challenged the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, it is necessary to hear out his appeal alongwith the case of appellant/Dinesh Tiwari.

¶16

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.02.2015 and order of sentence dated 25.02.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 2008/ 157 of 2014 arising out of Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 78 of 2007, whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C.; rigorous imprisonment for three years, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appellants have been directed to suffer further one year rigorous imprisonment. The sentences, however, have been ordered to run concurrently.

¶17

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 3/15

¶18

According to the fardbeyan (Ext.1/1) of the informant /Lallan Paswan (PW-3) who is the Chowkidar of village-Saur, the occurrence took place on 26.07.2007 at about 8:00 PM for which fardbeyan was recorded by S.I., P. Kant of Warsaliganj police station on 27.07.2007 at 01:15 hours at village Saur whereafter the FIR was registered.

¶19

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the fateful day i.e. on 26.07.2007 at about 8:00 PM, hulla was heard in the village-Saur that the appellants/Dinesh Tiwari and Ajit Tiwari have committed the murder of wife of late Mithu Tiwari by pressing her neck and have thrown the dead body in the village well. It has been claimed by the informant that when he reached near the house of appellant/Dinesh Tiwari, village people had gathered there who were taking out the dead body from the well. He came to learn that the reason behind the occurrence was an attempt to usurping the property situated at Hosiarpur in Punjab which was in the name of deceased. It was specifically stated that villagers are the witnesses of the said occurrence.

¶20

On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant/Lallan Paswan, Warsaliganj P.S. Case No.78/07 dated 27.07.2007 was registered under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Routine investigation followed. The statement of the witnesses

¶21

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 4/15

¶22

came to be recorded and on completion of the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 201/34 of the I.P.C., whereafter cognizance was taken against the appellants under the aforesaid sections. The learned Trial court was pleased to frame charges against the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. Charges were read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶23

In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, prosecution has examined altogether thirteen witnesses. PW-1 Vinod Kumar, PW-2 Parmanand Singh, PW-3 Lallan Paswan/informant, PW-4 Naresh Tiwari, PW-5 Bipin Tiwari, PW-6 Awadhesh Tiwari, PW-7 Krishna Kumar Singh, PW-8 Ramcharitra Singh, PW-9 Bindu Kumar Singh, PW-10 Poonam Kumari, PW-11 Aditya Narayan Pandey, PW-12 Dr. Nand Kishore Chaudhary and PW-13 Pramod Kant (I.O.).

¶24

Prosecution has relied upon following documentary evidence on record:-

¶25

Ext. 1- Signature of informant on fardbeyan proved by PW-3. Ext. 1/1- Endorsement on the fardbeyan proved by PW13. Ext. 2- Postmortem report proved by PW-12. Ext. 3- Fardbeyan proved by PW-13. Ext. 4- Formal FIR proved by PW-13. Ext. 5- Inquest report proved by PW-13.

¶26

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 5/15

¶27

Defence of the appellants 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.

¶28

After hearing the parties, the learned Trial court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as aforesaid.

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Trial court has not considered the fact that the material witnesses are near relatives of the deceased, hence they are all interested witnesses. None of the prosecution witnesses are eye witness to the occurrence and the learned Trial court has not considered the deposition of witnesses in proper perspective. On the basis of deposition of PW-10, who is not an eye witness of the occurrence, the appellants have been convicted by the Trial Court. The Trial court has failed to consider that none of the witnesses had stated that PW-10 was locked inside the room and was brought out only after opening the door from outside. It has also not been considered that none of the witnesses came forward to say that they took out the dead body from well.

¶30

On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial court is just and proper and is based on the sound reasoning. He has further submitted that PW-

¶31

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 6/15

¶32

10 has clearly stated that she has seen the appellants who assaulted her and pressed her neck. Her evidence is sufficient to justify the conviction and sentence of the appellants

¶33

We have perused the impugned judgment and the Trial court records.

¶34

It is necessary to analyze and evaluate the evidence of witnesses adduced before the Trial court in the light of the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C.

¶35

It is necessary to analyze the evidence of PW-10 (Poonam Kumari) who claims herself to be an eye witness to the occurrence. She has stated that the occurrence took place two years ago at 08:00 PM. She narrated the story of prosecution that appellant/Ajit Tiwari pressed the mouth and appellant/Dinesh Tiwari pressed the neck of the deceased, due to which she died. She has further stated that appellants threw the dead body in the well. The villagers took out the dead body from the well. During the cross examination, she has stated that she and her sister were slapped by the appellants and both were locked inside the room. She has further stated that when villagers came, they opened the door.

¶36

Now, the testimony of said witness can be tested upon the touchstone of the facts and materials available on record.

¶37

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 7/15

¶38

At the time of alleged occurrence, she was aged about 13 years. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated that the daughter of the deceased had seen the occurrence of killing of her mother. No witness has stated that the daughter of deceased had been locked inside the door and said door was opened by anyone of the villagers/witnesses. Prudently and pragmatically, it cannot be denied that those who were involved in killing of the deceased would not spare anyone having seen the occurrence to reveal the fact to others. In the background of the aforenoted facts of the case, PW-10, who claimed to be the eye witness, cannot be relied upon. Had she been an eye witness, her name would have been stated in the fardbeyan or in the deposition of the prosecution witness.

¶39

From the fardbeyan (Ext-1/1), which is based on indirect source of information, it appears that none had seen the occurrence. In the last portion of FIR, it is claimed that villagers were the witnesses of the said occurrence. I.O. (PW-13) has clearly stated in his deposition that no one was willing to lodge the fardbeyan though there were about 25-30 people present at the place of occurrence.

¶40

PW-1(Vinod Kumar) has stated that he had not seen the occurrence and his statement was never recorded by the police.

¶41

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 8/15

¶42

He has not supported the case of prosecution and has been declared hostile.

¶43

PW-2 (Parmanand Singh) has stated that on hulla, he went to the spot and saw that the deceased had been thrown in the well. He had heard that someone had killed her. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile.

¶44

PW-3(Lallan Paswan) is informant of the case. He has stated that he did not know as to who had killed the deceased. His statement was also not recorded by the police. He has also been declared hostile.

¶45

PW-4 (Naresh Tiwari) has stated that when he reached at the house of deceased, he saw her dead body. He is also a hearsay witness and has not stated anything as to who had killed the deceased.

¶46

PW-5 (Bipin Tiwari) has stated that when he returned to the village after cremation, he knew that wife of Mithu Tiwari had died. He heard a rumour that Dinesh Tiwari had killed her. He has stated that late Mithu Tiwari has three daughters and one son and all of them were present in the house at the time of occurrence.

¶47

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 9/15

¶48

Though PW-5 is not an eye witness of the occurrence but he has given specific information of the fact that the widow/deceased was not alone at her house. Three of her daughters and one son were present in the house. If the evidence of PW-5 is to be believed, then question arises as to why the other members of the family have not been examined at the trial. Even the I.O. has not given any detail regarding the family member of the widow/deceased.

¶49

PW-6 (Awadhesh Tiwari) has stated that he had gone to perform the last rites of his father and the appellant/Dinesh Tiwari did not go there. He has stated that when he returned to the village after performing the last rites, he saw that the villagers had gathered there and the wife of late Mithu Tiwary was lying dead. The villagers had kept the appellant/Dinesh Tiwary in confinement. He has given specific information that when late Mithu Tiwari was alive, he worked at a Gurudwara in Punjab. An amount of approximately 4 lakhs was given to the deceased as exgratia payment for the death of her husband. During the crossexamination he stated that he did not know the killer.

¶50

PW-7 (Krishna Kumar Singh) has given a different version of story viz. that the wife of late Mithu Tiwari fell in the well and her dead body was kept in courtyard.

¶51

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 10/15

¶52

PW-8 (Ram Charitar Singh) has stated that on hulla, he reached at the house of Dinesh Tiwari where he found the dead body lying near the well. He has stated that on enquiry, the appellants stated that they had killed the deceased by slitting her neck and that they had thrown the dead body in well with a view to usurp the property.

¶53

PW-9 (Bindu Kumar Singh) has stated that appellants/Dinesh Tiwari and Ajit Tiwari had killed the wife of Mithu Tiwari for three lakhs rupees. During the cross-examination, he has stated that he did not see the occurrence.

¶54

PW-11 (Aditya Narayan Pandey) has stated that when he returned from the last rites of one Bhagwat Tiwari, he heard that wife of late Mithu Tiwari had been killed. He heard the appellants/Dinesh Tiwari and Ajit Tiwari tell the villagers that they committed the murder of deceased for getting the money received from Punjab. He is not an eye witness to the occurrence.

¶55

PW-12 is Dr. Nand Kishore Chaudhary. He has stated that on 27.07.2007, he was posted as Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Nawada and on that date at 2:30 PM, he conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Kalyani Devi and found the following ante-mortem injuries:-

¶56

(i) Swelling over neck.

¶57

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 11/15

¶58

On dissectionTrachea compressed and congested. Both chamber of the heart and empty. Lungs were pale and intact. All organs were pale and intact. Stomach and bladder empty, uterus normal.

¶59

Cause of death- asphyxia due to throttling. Time elapsed since death is within 24 hours. The postmortem report of Kalyani Devi was written and signed by him which stands marked as Ext. 2.

¶60

During the cross-examination, he has stated that due to drowning, there may be a possibility of asphyxia and of swelling on account of injury on neck.

¶61

PW-13 (Pramod Kant) is the I.O of the case. He has stated that he learnt on the basis of rumour that the deceased had been murdered by her family members and her dead body was thrown in well. He reached the village Saur and recorded the statement of Mahal chaukidar (informant) who put his signature on fardbeyan, which stands marked as Ext. 3. He recorded the further statement of the informant. He prepared the inquest report and visited the place of occurrence. He did not find any blood at the P.O. He has conceded that despite many villagers being present at the P.O., no one was ready to give the fardbeyan. He had not found any rope or sari at the place of occurrence.

¶62

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 12/15

¶63

The I.O. did not make any investigation on the point of property, which apparently was the reason for the murder. One of the witnesses viz. PW-5 has clearly stated that the deceased had three daughters and one son. Only PW-10 was cited as a charge-sheet witness. The I.O. has not pointed out any reason for not citing other family members as witnesses.

¶64

After going through the fardbeyan, it is not clear as to who gave the information regarding the occurrence having been committed by the appellants. The source of information appears to be based on rumour.

¶65

PWs. 1, 2 and 3 have been declared hostile. PW-3 (informant) has taken U turn from his earlier version which is mentioned in the fardbeyan. PWs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are not eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated that they saw that PW-10 had been locked inside a room and was brought out later by opening the door of the room.

¶66

It is necessary to examine the testimony of PW-10, the so called eye witness to the alleged occurrence. She has told the court that she has seen the appellants killing her mother. She did not but say anything about the other members of her family.

¶67

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 13/15

¶68

The question arises as to how other family members who were present in the house have not been examined.

¶69

Keeping in view the aforenoated reasons, her version does not appear to be convincing and trustworthy.

¶70

Thus there is no eye witness to the occurrence, which clearly appears from the fardbeyan itself. The source of information is rumour and rumour alone. There is no direct source of information regarding the killing of the deceased.

¶71

The facts and circumstances of the case do not satisfy the five conditions of the rule of circumstantial evidence which is as follows:-

¶72

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely "may be" fully established,

¶73

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

¶74

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

¶75

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

¶76

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 14/15

¶77

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

¶78

The finding of the Trial court is virtually based on the evidence of PW-10. A deeper scrutiny of her testimony renders it doubtful and therefore unreliable.

¶79

The motive behind the occurrence could not be proved and as per the opinion of the doctor, asphyxia could be caused by drowning and the injury could have been caused at the time of falling in well. Hence, the possibility of death by falling in well cannot be ruled out. In this background, it is difficult to rely upon the version of PW-10 and in the light of aforenoted reason, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial court is not justified.

¶80

Thus, the conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

¶81

The appellant/Ajit Tiwari is on bail. His liabilities under the bail bonds is cancelled.

¶82

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.468 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023 15/15

¶83

The appellant/Dinesh Tiwari is in custody. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case.

¶84

The appeal stands allowed.

¶85

Let a copy of this judgment be dispatched to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail forthwith for compliance and for the purposes of record.

¶86

The records of these appeals be returned to the Trial court forthwith.

¶87

Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stand disposed off accordingly.

¶88

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶89

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶90

amitkumar/shahzad

¶91

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	20.09.2023
Uploading Date	05.10.2023
Transmission Date	05.10.2023

Dinesh Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Rai and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Shashikant @ Lucho Mahton and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Suresh Prasad and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Suraj Kumar Sada @ Suraj Sada Vs The State Of Bihar

Sawan Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Prafulla Yadav @ Prafulla Kumar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar