The High Court found that the appellant did not intend to kill the deceased. Conviction under Section 302 IPC was converted to Section 304-II IPC, and the appellant was released from jail as he had already served the requisite term.
Conviction converted from Section 302 to Section 304-II IPC; appellant released from jail.
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.209 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-1989 Thana- NAYAGAON District- Begusarai
======================================================
Radhe Singh, son of Late Sukhdeo Singh alias Munni Singh, resident of Village and P.O. Safapur, P.S. Nayagaon, District- Begusarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 09-01-2024
Thakur, the learned Advocate for the sole appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 2/15
dated 17.02.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 339 of 1993 (Computer Reg. No. 5733 of 2013) arising out of Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 38 of 1989. By order dated 22.02.2016, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for three months.
were made accused in Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 38 of 1989, which initially was instituted for offences under Sections 341, 324, 307, 504/34 of the IPC, but later Section 302 of the IPC was added. Only the appellant was put on trial, as his brother, a co-accused, had died by the time the trial had commenced.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 3/15
Singh while playing and the nephews of Radhe Singh had complained to him. Radhe Singh and his brother (since dead) came to the house of Saryug Singh and started assaulting Sanjeet Kumar (P.W. 4). In the meantime, the father of Sanjeet Kumar viz. Subansh Singh (deceased) came from field and accosted the appellant and his brother for assaulting a child and interfering in a dispute between children. The appellant and his brother are then said to have left in a huff. They came back after an hour and while the brother of the appellant held the deceased by his waist, the appellant attacked him by a fly-axe. The deceased, while trying to avert the attack, got injured in his arm. Shortly thereafter, he died. As such, the FIR referred above was registered for investigation.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 4/15
record for the reason of it being lost during the long
period that the case remained pending. However, the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem on 08.09.1989 has been examined as P.W. 8.
P.W. 8, referred to above, would indicate that he had opened a dressed wound in the upper arm of the deceased. All the blood vessels were found to be completely cut-off. The muscles were also cut-off at a particular level. However, there was no fracture of any
bone. The death was opined to have been caused because of haemorrhage and shock, as a result of the injuries suffered by the deceased. The injury was again opined to have been caused by a sharp-cutting weapon. The time elapsed since death was fixed at 24 hours.
report, one thing is certain that the deceased would
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 5/15
not have died of fat-embolism as the bone had not been fractured. Therefore, there is a possibility of the deceased dying because of neurogenic shock as a result of bleeding, because the blood vessels and muscles had been sheared through. That the deceased was subjected to medical aid would appear from the findings of the doctor viz. that the wound was found to be dressed. However, there is no evidence of the deceased having put to any medical aid and he is said to have died before such medical aid could have been given to him.
deposition of Yogeshwar Singh, Ram Kumar Singh and Mahendra Singh P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 who are the own brother, a cousin and an agnate of the deceased and
the informant respectively.
become very clear that they have a common house. But then, a different establishment, away from the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 6/15
house has also been spoken of by all the afore-noted witnesses. At home, there is a common courtyard. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the out-house and not in the main dwelling house of the informant or the deceased.
interpretation for the reason that none of the witnesses have talked about any attempt at nabbing the appellant or his brother. The appellant and his late
brother are residents of the same village, whose children had fought amongst themselves.
2), a cousin of the deceased claims to have reached
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 7/15
the place of occurrence as the first person and only thereafter P.Ws. 1 and 3 had arrived. This narration, therefore, leaves one with a doubt whether anyone of the three persons had seen the actual part of the assault.
on his upper arm is for certain and such fact stands proved by the deposition of the Doctor, notwithstanding, the post-mortem report not having been brought on record because of the same having been lost.
therefore, is whether the appellant had attacked the deceased with the intention of killing him or with the intention of causing such bodily injury, which in ordinary course of nature would have caused his death or with the knowledge that such attack would cause such an injury as would become fatal for the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 8/15
which this brawl took place?
deposition of the witnesses, Sanjeet Kumar (P.W. 4), who is the son of the deceased had picked up a fight with the nephews of the appellant. The nephews of the appellant had complained about Sanjeet Kumar. The appellant and his brother jumped in the fray and after reaching the house of the deceased, caught aforenoted Sanjeet Kumar and assaulted him. This was objected to by his father, who had arrived at the house in the nick of the time. Nothing happened then. It was only after an hour that the appellant along with his brother came and attacked the deceased.
version, especially with respect to the intention harboured by the appellant of killing the deceased for such a minor dispute, as also for testing the presence
of Sanjeet Kumar and Rajeev Kumar (P.W. 5) at the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 9/15
P.O.
the out-house from the play field. He was assaulted by the appellant at 3 O’clock in the out-house. There is nothing on record to indicate that he had stayed back
in the out-house till the time the appellant and his brother came back to assault his father who had intervened.
was the cause of trouble would get back to his home after the dispute was over. There is no reference of the presence of Sanjeet or his brother Rajeev Kumar (P.W. 5) in the farbdeyan or in the deposition of the witnesses viz. P.Ws. 1 to 3.
Kumar and Rajeev Kumar, P.Ws. 4 and 5 had really seen the assault taking place.
into account that the deceased died because of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 10/15
injuries on his upper limb.
killing the deceased? That the bone had not been fractured or cut is one of the factors to be taken into account before concluding about the intention of the appellant. The injury had been caused because of the deceased having made an attempt to thwart the attack.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 11/15
would have received first aid or a proper treatment at the hospital. However, the witnesses have confirmed
that the deceased could not possibly be taken to the hospital as he died mid-way.
bandage on the wound which was spotted by the Doctor conducting the post-mortem.
have been left in the narration by the witnesses.
bleeding, resulting in neurogenic shock and death?
leaves us in complete lurch.
appellant but he can only be attributed with the knowledge that such attack was cause an injury which could be fatal.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 12/15
the appellant, there was no intervening circumstance. If the prosecution story is to be believed, the deceased
was put in an arm-lock with the help of the brother of the appellant, thus immobilizing him. There was no second attack. This only signifies that the intention was
not to kill but the attack was only a reaction to the deceased stopping the appellant and his brother from assaulting Sanjeet Kumar, who had fought with the nephews of the appellant.
harbouring an intention to kill somebody.
cannot be plumbed and can only be derived from the surrounding circumstances. The surrounding circumstances viz. there being nothing to stop the
appellant from giving another blow; no bone having been fractured; no attempt having been made by anybody to nab the appellant and the death possibly on account of the deceased not put to medical aid in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 13/15
time, are confirmatory of the fact that the intention was not to kill.
enraged by the fact that Sanjeet Kumar was not allowed to be beaten up by him, even though he
(Sanjeet) had assaulted his nephews.
for anybody to kill anyone.
action in a flash of temper, for the reason that the appellant is said to have come back to the house of the deceased again after an hour. There was sufficient time
for him to have cooled down; but attributing him with the intention of causing the death appears to be a bit far-fetched.
not agree with the opinion of the Trial Court that the appellant had intended to kill the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 14/15
convert the conviction of the appellant to one under
Section 304-II of the IPC from Section 302 of the IPC.
note of the fact that the occurrence took place about 35 years ago.
remained in jail for about eight years by now. We convert the sentence accordingly, to one which the appellant has already undergone in jail by now. The amount of fine saddled upon the appellant is not being interfered with.
the ends of justice.
required or detained in any other case.
dispatched to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.209 of 2016 dt.09-01-2024 15/15
forthwith for compliance and record.
to the Trial Court forthwith.
stand disposed off accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Nani Tagia, J)
manoj/krishna-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 10.01.2024 |
| Transmission Date | 10.01.2024 |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant intended to kill the deceased or merely caused an injury likely to cause death.
Whether the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC should be converted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Whether the appellant should be released from jail given the age of the occurrence and duration of incarceration.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Radhe Singh
State of Bihar
Ashutosh Kumar
Nani Tagia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
