Patna High Court
Ram Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 27 August, 2014
Author: Amaresh Kumar Lal
Bench: Amaresh Kumar Lal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.471 of 1991
Arising Out of PS.Case No.-18 Year-1988 Thana-Agiaon District- BHOJPUR
===========================================================
Ram Kumar Singh, Son of Late Sheo Lakhan Singh, Resident of Village Ratnarh,
P.S. Agiaon, District Bhojpur.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Shri Rana Pratap Singh, Senior Advocate
Shri Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Shri Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA
and
HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA)
Date: 27-08-2014
The solitary appellant Ram Kumar Singh has preferred
the present appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 08.10.1991, passed in S.T. No. 120 of
1989, by which he was held guilty of committing offences under
Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of
the Arms Act. After hearing the appellant on sentence under
Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah directed the appellant
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life on each of the two counts,
i.e., under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and
rigorous imprisonment for seven years due to found guilty of
committing the offence under Section 27 of
2 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014
2 / 36
the Arms Act. While the appellant was convicted and sentenced as
noted herein, the other accused persons, namely, Krishan Kumar
Singh, who happened to be the brother of the present appellant,
was acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case, as per the First Information
Report (Ext.2), lodged by P.W.2 Budheshwar Singh was that his
son Ramchandra Singh, who was a practicing advocate of this
Court, as appears undisputed from evidence, was coming back
home after having attended to the call of nature at about 6 a.m. on
03.04.1988. He found that some children were picking up Mahua flowers under the Mahua tree which was situated, as per his claim, on his land. Ramchandra Singh objected to the picking up of the Mahua flowers upon which the children raising hue and cry went towards their house speaking out that Ramchandra Singh had assaulted them.
It was stated that this appellant Ram Kumar Singh with acquitted accused Krishan Kumar Singh and Vijay Kumar Singh (who was adjudged a juvenile and whose case was sent to the children court) came out of their house. This appellant was armed with a rifle while the remaining two Krishan Kumar Singh and Vijay Kumar Singh were carrying a Bhala and lathi respectively. 3 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 3 / 36 No sooner appellant Ram Kumar Singh had emerged from his house than he fired a shot from his rifle at Ramchandra Singh who was hit and fell down in the plot in which a Mahua tree and a Jamun tree were standing. Ramchandra Singh fell on the southern part of the plot which was being used also as a Khalihan. Seeing the incident, the informant Budheshwar Singh (P.W.2) and his second son Paras Nath Singh as also Uma Shankar Singh who happened to be the son of deceased Ramchandra Singh ran towards the place of occurrence from their Duar (Darwaza) and as soon as they reached the Khalihan, this appellant Ram Kumar Singh fired two shots targeting Paras Nath Singh and Uma Shankar Singh and both of them fell injured there. The informant stated that seeing the incident, he and his nephew Ram Kripal Singh (P.W.6), who had also accompanied him, ran for their lives who were chased by Ram Kumar Singh with rifle, but P.W.2 and P.W.6 the informant and Ram Kripal Singh respectively succeeded in making good their escape.
After a while, the informant with some persons of the village came back to the Khalihan and found that his son Ramchandra Singh had been hit by shot in his rib-cage and he was dead. However, he found the remaining two injured, namely, Paras Nath Singh and Uma Shankar Singh, still alive and he along 4 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 4 / 36 with the help of his villagers put the two on cots and brought the deceased and the two injured to the hospital for lodging the First Information Report.
3. As regards the motive or reason for the occurrence, it was stated by P.W.2 that there was some dispute in between the family of the informant and that of the present appellant regarding the plot over which the Mahua tree was standing and it was quite an old dispute giving rise to a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between both the sides. The informant stated that picking up of the Mahua flowers was unlawful and by force and the objection to that by Ramchandra Singh had resulted in the incident. It was stated further that in order to grabbing the plot by taking possession over it, the appellant got the plot measured one day prior to the incident unilaterally also.
4. As may appear from the evidence of P.W.9 Syed Zulfiullah, who was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Agiaon police station in the district of Bhojpur at Arrah on 03.04.1988, i.e., the date of occurrence that after institution of the case on the statement of P.W.2, he took up the investigation himself and recorded the statements of Uma Shankar Singh marked Ext.7 and that of Paras Nath Singh marked Ext.7/1. P.W.9 5 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 5 / 36 A.S.I. Syed Zulfiullah, thereafter, held inquest upon the dead body of deceased Ramchandra Singh and prepared the inquest report in presence of witnesses. The inquest report of Ramchandra Singh was marked Ext.3. It appears from the evidence of P.W.9 that the present appellant with other accused persons had appeared at the police station with his rifle, used in the commission of the offence with 26 rounds of cartridges and also prepared the injury reports of injured Uma Shankar Singh and Paras Nath Singh and sent the two injured to Sadar Hospital, Arrah for treatment. He, at the same time, dispatched the dead body of Ramchandra Singh with Constable Sheojee Singh and Choukidar Ramjee Singh for post- mortem examination.
P.W.9 the Investigating Officer of the case departed from the police station at 10.45 a.m. for the place of occurrence and he reached there and recorded the statement of P.W.4 Bhadai Singh at the place of occurrence at about 11.45 a.m. He inspected the place of occurrence in presence of P.Ws. 4 and 2 which was situated in the southern part of village Ratnarh. It was a plot situated to the South-West of the residential house of the informant (P.W.2). A huge Mahua tree was standing over the plot. At a distance of 30 feet from this Mahua tree, there was a stack of hays. The Investigating Officer inspected the Eastern and Western parts 6 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 6 / 36 of the plot and found that there was another Mahua tree situated at a distance of about 50 feet from the huge Mahua tree and this small tree was standing over the Southern part of Survey Plot No. 2840 to the contiguous West of which plot was another plot bearing No. 2855. It was found that the roots of the huge Mahua tree had run into some part of Plot No. 2855. The Investigating Officer perused the papers in respect of Plots No. 2840 and 2855 and it was found that the area of Plot No. 2855 was 21 decimal and the two Mahua trees with two Mango trees were recorded over it.
The house of the accused, i.e., the house of the present appellant was found located at a distance of 50 feet from the above plot and it was found that a path way was running up to the house of appellant Ram Kumar Singh which had gone further to the house of P.W.6 Ram Kripal Singh which was facing towards north. To the south of the house of P.W.6 Ram Kripal Singh was situated the house of the informant which was facing east. In the back of the house of appellant Ram Kumar Singh was lying ruins of a mud built house. The field of Budheshwar Singh was situated by the side of a land which was recorded as a public land and to the east of the place of occurrence was lying the Khalihan which had extended a bit up to north and it was probably the part of Plot No. 2855 which was lying fallow.
7 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 7 / 36 The Investigating Officer found blood fallen under the huge Mahua tree as also at a place South of the hay-stack. He also found copious blood on the ground east of the same hay-stack. The Investigating Officer also found casings of cartridges .315 bore. He seized blood from three places found on the place of occurrence, he seized the casings of the cartridges. He prepared the seizure memo Exts. 8 and 8/1 in presence of the witnesses.
5. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of various villagers which included those who accompanied the deceased to the police station and who had come at the place of occurrence including Ashthmi Ram (P.W.5). He received the inquest reports of Paras Nath Singh and Uma Shankar Singh, who had died in Arrah, from Arrah police station. Those reports had been marked Exts. 3/1 and 3/2 respectively. P.W.9 the Investigating Officer also received the post-mortem examination reports of the three deceased and he went to the place of occurrence again on 07.04.1988 to record the statements of Ram Kripal Singh (P.W.6), Ashok Kumar Singh (P.W.7) and Mithilesh Kumar Singh (P.W.8). He got the sketch map of the place of occurrence prepared by someone and after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet for trial of the accused persons.
8 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 8 / 36
6. The defence of the appellant was that the daughter and son of appellant Ram Kumar Singh were picking up Mahua from the land in dispute and that Chunnu son of Ram Kripal Singh and other children were assaulted by the informant and others with lathi and the children driven away from there upon which the wife of Ram Kumar Singh, namely, Rajkeshwar Devi and his brother as also his son Vijay came there, who were also assaulted by the informant and others. It was the further defence plea that at that time one Munna Singh and Ram Kripal Singh (P.W.6) were carrying pistols and they fired shots from behind the hay-stack and the three deceased were hit by shots fired by P.W.6 and Munna Singh. Thus, the defence suggested that no occurrence had taken place in the manner and of the description as was alleged by the prosecution. This defence case appears in the suggestion given to P.W.2 the informant in paragraph 16 of his evidence.
7. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of the charges. Dr. S.P. Srivastava (P.W.1) had held post-mortem examination on the three dead bodies of Ramchandra Singh, Paras Nath Singh and Uma Shankar Singh and had prepared the post-mortem reports (Ext.1 to 1/2). P.W.2 Budheshwar Singh, as already noted, was the informant of the case and the father of the two deceased Ramchandra Singh and Paras Nath Singh and the 9 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 9 / 36 grand father of the third deceased Uma Shankar Singh who happened to be the son of deceased Ramchandra Singh. P.W.3 Ram Roshan Singh, P.W.4 Bhadai Singh, P.W.5 Ashthami Ram, P.W.6 Ram Kripal Singh and P.W.7 Ashok Kumar Singh had given eye witness account to the occurrence out of whom P.W.8 Mithilesh Kumar Singh was the son of the informant and the brothers of two deceased Ramchandra Singh and Paras Nath Singh. P.W.6 Ram Kripal Singh was the father of P.W.7 Ashok Kumar Singh. P.W.3 Ram Roshan Singh as also P.W.6 Ram Kripal Singh have admitted that they were also related distantly with the informant; Ram Kripal Singh as his nephew whereas Ram Roshan Singh (P.W.3) as his brother by village relationship. I have already noted that the case was investigated into by P.W.9 Syed Zulfiullah. P.W.10 Rajendra Singh was a witness of formal character who tendered in evidence the sketch map which was allegedly prepared by one Chunnu who happened to be the son of Ram Kripal Singh.
8. The defence also examined two witnesses. D.W. 1 Dr. Lallan Prasad Singh had examined Vijay Kumar Singh the son of this appellant Ram Kumar Singh and Smt. Rajkeshwar Devi, the wife of the present appellant Ram Kumar Singh and his brother Krishna Kumar Singh had issued the injury certificates (Ext.B and B/2) in that behalf. D.W.2 Naresh Mohan Jha was the Sergeant 10 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 10 / 36 Major in the Police Lines, Bhojpur at Arrah on 25.04.1988 and he had examined the rifle which was seized on production of it before P.W.9 by the present appellant which bore No. 84AB-3186 and had found no evidence of firing a shot by it and, as such, submitted a report (Ext.C). The original copy of the report submitted by D.W.2 was not tendered in evidence. It was only a photo stat copy of the document.
9. After considering the evidence, both of prosecution and defence, the learned trial Judge passed the impugned judgment.
10. Sri Rana Pratap Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant did not dispute that the witnesses did not bear any animosity towards the appellant but submitted, at the same time, that they appear related to the informant and, as such, were interested in his case. Their evidence should be rejected. Submission was that what appeared from the evidence was that the picking up of Mahua flowers had occurred from under the large Mahua tree and there was no evidence clearly pointing out that it was in possession of the informant and, as such, it could not be said that the appellant could be an aggressor. Submission also was that the appellant had acted bona fide by surrendering before the police on the same day while the informant 11 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 11 / 36 and others were still at the police station and handed over his rifle to the police which was seized. The appellant was accompanied by his son Vijay Kumar Singh, wife Smt. Rajkeshwar Devi and brother Krishna Kumar Singh, who were bearing injuries which appears from the evidence of D.W.1 and also from the evidence of the police officer P.W.9 and, as such, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to explain injuries found on their persons and the absence of any explanation in the above behalf makes their evidence suspect as the witnesses appear making false statements on the most material aspects of the prosecution case. By referring to the evidence of witnesses as also to P.W.1, the doctor who had conducted autopsy on the three dead bodies, Sri Singh, submitted that the witnesses were equivocal in pointing out that the appellant had fired three shots, one each targeting each of the deceased and had either killed or injured them. However, the evidence of P.W.1 indicated that there were two injuries on each of the three dead bodies and that improbabilized the manner of occurrence which was narrated by the witnesses. It was contended by Sri Singh that it is a very serious defect in the prosecution case.
11. Sri Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, responding to the above arguments of the appellant, submitted that it may appear from the very evidence of 12 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 12 / 36 P.Ws. 2 and 3 that they were not really related by blood or any relationship so as to be interested in the litigation; their evidence indeed indicated that they were villagers equally of the informant and the present appellant and could by virtue of the village relationship might be the brother or nephew of the informant except P.W.8 Mithilesh Kumar Singh who happened to be the son of the informant and who did not indeed had given any evidence in detail as he was merely tendered for cross-examination. Thus, contended Sri Sinha, the witnesses were independent and their evidence is acceptable. It was further contended by Sri Sinha that the evidence of witnesses, even that of P.W.2 the informant, may not really indicate that the informant or his family was indeed inimically disposed towards the appellant and his family so as to be motivated to replace the real offender by an innocent person, like, the appellant. In fact it could never be disputed that the witnesses were not partial and they had no animus towards the appellant. It was submitted that the evidence of witnesses was consistent on the details of the occurrence and their evidence was supported by the medical evidence.
12. P.W.2 Budheshwar Singh has been supported by P.W.3 Ram Roshan Singh, P.W.4 Bhadai Singh, P.W.5 Ashthmi Ram, P.W.6 Ram Kripal Sigh, and P.W.7 Ashok Kumar Singh his 13 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 13 / 36 son. P.W.2 the informant has stated in his cross-examination paragraph 6 that P.W.8 Mithlesh Kumar Singh was his son and P.W.6 Ram Kripal Singh was distantly related to him as his nephew whose son Ashok Kumar Singh (P.W.7) was also a witness in the case. So far as P.W.3 Ram Roshan Singh is concerned, P.W.2 stated in the same paragraph that he was again related to him as brother on account of village relationship. P.W.6 Ram Kripal Singh also stated in paragraph 4 of his evidence that the informant of the case, i.e., P.W.2, was related to him distantly as uncle and that P.W.7 Ashok Kumar Singh was his son. So far as Ram Roshan Singh (P.W.3) is concerned, he was not put any direct question during his cross-examination but had stated in paragraph-5 that his grandfather was Bundela Yadav whose father was Rafal Yadav. He did not know whether Jawahar and Chhathu were sister's sons of the said Rafal Yadav and he further did not know whether P.W.2 the informant was the grandson of the said Jawahar and that, P.W.6 Ram Kripal Singh was the grandson of Chhathu. Thus, what appears is that there is no clear evidence indicating that Ram Roshan Singh or even Ram Kripal Singh could be directly related to the informant by blood. So far as P.W.4 Bhadai Singh is concerned, I do not find any evidence of being interested except that he had admitted that he had lent money to 14 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 14 / 36 P.W.2 and had obtained his field in mortgage therefor. P.W.5 Ashthami Ram belonged to another caste and what the defence attempted to show to the trial Court by cross-examining him in paragraph 3 was that he might be inimically deposed towards the present appellant but on consideration of that particular paragraph 3 of P.W.5, I do not find that the defence had succeeded in showing any bias in P.W.5 towards appellant Ram Kumar Singh.
Interestedness due to being related to the victim or the informant in itself could not be sufficient to reject the evidence of witnesses. Interestedness of a witness is not to be inferred merely because of being related to either the victim or the informant; what is required to be shown to the Court is that the witnesses had certain purpose or motive in deposing against the accused and that purpose or motive was to ensure that the accused was convicted at the trial on the strength of his evidence. While considering the evidence of these witnesses I did not find any direct relationship between the informant Budheshwar Singh on the one hand and the witnesses on the other. What appeared further was that the defence could not even show that there was a groupism in the village and the village population was divided in two groups and further that the informant or any of the witnesses was leading one of the groups. There was also no evidence shown 15 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 15 / 36 to me that the witnesses were bearing any animus towards the present appellant Ram Kumar Singh. In fact Sri Singh also conceded this point that the witnesses did not bear any animosity towards the present appellant. Village life has some of its own niceties. Even if someone was not related directly by blood to any person, still he could be calling the person as his uncle or brother or any such name out of the social conduct and cohesive relationship. What appeared to me after considering the evidence of these witnesses was that they had no particular purpose or motive in coming forward to depose in the Court during trial so as to ensuring that the appellant was convicted of the charges which had been slapped on him. Their presence appears natural, as may appear from the description of the place of occurrence given by P.W.9 the Investigating Officer, who noted down the situation of different houses and it appears that the houses of the witnesses were almost situated in the same cluster of houses making it very easy for them to reach the place of occurrence for witnessing it. What I further find is that before the first shot was fired by the appellant targeting Ramchandra Singh, there had been some minor incident of forbidding the children who were picking up Mahua flowers and they had gone complaining that they had been beaten up. All witnesses said that the occurrence had resulted from this 16 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 16 / 36 minor incidence of forbidding children to pick up Mahua. This must have attracted the attention of neighbours and villagers living in the houses adjoining that of the informants' and they must have been curious to know or find out as to what was to happen further.
However, while I was perusing the evidence of witnesses, I found them giving reasons for their arrival or presence at the scene of occurrence, as may appear from the evidence of P.W.3 Ram Roshan Singh, P.W.5 Ashthami Ram and P.W.7 Ashok Kumar Singh who stated that they had gone out to ease and while coming back, they were attracted to the scene of occurrence on Hulla. This reason assigned by the above noted witnesses had not been challenged and I find that their attention was also not drawn to suggest that that reason had not been stated by any of them to the police. It was 6 a.m. and there could not be any reason to doubt the claim of the witnesses as to how they had arrived at the scene of occurrence.
13. So far as P.W.4 Bhadai Singh is concerned, his claim was that his wheat field was situated 50 steps towards east of the place of occurrence and he was harvesting his standing wheat crop and on hearing Hulla, he went west of the house of P.W.2 and saw the occurrence. During his cross-examination, he was questioned as to whether he had shown that particular wheat field 17 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 17 / 36 to the Investigating Officer. He was further questioned, as may appear from paragraph 3, as to for how long he had been there in the field harvesting his wheat crop and who were other persons doing the job with him P.W.4 stated that it was the field measuring 1 Bigha 12 Kathas and he was harvesting the crop one Pahar before the dawn-time, which, in my opinion, may be somewhere around 3-4 a.m. in the morning. But what appears is that in two hours time, the witness stated that he had harvested the standing wheat crop of only one Katha and the harvested wheat was equal to about 2-4 bundles. This appears improbable. The other evidence of P.W.4 in reply to a question was that he was the proprietor of about 25 Bighas of land and he had labourers and why should he till his land himself when he had already labourers for doing those jobs. If this was the reality that P.W.4 was the proprietor of 25 Bighas of land and he used to employ labourers for carrying out his agricultural operations, it is very difficult to believe that he will himself go to harvest the standing wheat crop from his field on that particular day. In my opinion, this witness was telling a lie as regards the reason for his presence at the scene of occurrence and, as such, I have thought it not advisable to accept his evidence as that of a trustworthy witness. I have sufficient reason to note that it is doubtful that P.W.4 Bhadai Singh was harvesting his wheat 18 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 18 / 36 crop near the place of occurrence and he had rushed to the place of occurrence and witnessed the same. Thus, eliminating the evidence of P.W.4 from my consideration, what I find is that the evidence of other witnesses, like, P.W.3 Ram Roshan Singh, P.W.5 Ashthami Ram, P.W.6 Ram Kripal Singh and P.W.7 Ashok Kumar Singh is fit to be accepted as they appear impartial persons who had equal relationship with the informant and the present appellant and who had come out to depose in the case without any bias or animosity towards the present appellant.
14. Before I proceed to examine the other arguments of Sri Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, I want to have a glance of the evidence of witnesses. After having stated as to how they arrived at the scene of occurrence, all the witnesses stated uniformly that as soon as they had reached there, they found that this appellant had fired a shot at Ramchandra Singh who fell down west of the hay-stack. Deceased Paras Nath Singh and Uma Shankar Singh also came there and they were also fired at and Paras Nath Singh fell near the huge Mahua tree whereas Uma Shankar Singh fell east of the hay-stack. There is only one exception to the above evidence as regards the sequence of firing and the same being seen by the witnesses and that is in the evidence of P.W.6 Ram Kripal Singh who in his cross-examination 19 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 19 / 36 (paragraph 6) stated that the total number of shots fired were three but only two shots were fired in his presence. This appears true because the informant P.W.2 had stated that after this appellant had fired the first shot as a result of which Ramchandra Singh had fallen in the Khalihan near the hay stack, he along with other two deceased Paras Nath Singh and Uma Shankar Singh rushed out of their house and reached the Khalihan. P.W.6 Ram Kripal Singh also reached and then this appellant had fired two shots consecutively at Paras Nath Singh and Uma Shankar Singh as a result of which they were injured. So far as the manner of occurrence is concerned, the witnesses have stated, as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and others that initially there was some exchange of words between this appellant and deceased Ramchandra Singh and, as such, this could safely be presumed that the distance between the two was not big at the time of firing the first shot. The two deceased Paras Nath Singh and Uma Shankar Singh were shot at while they were coming to the place of occurrence and had just entered into it as appears from the evidence of P.W.2 and other witnesses. There does not appear any contradiction in the evidence of witnesses. Of course, the attention of the witnesses had been drawn to some statements but when I was perusing the evidence of P.W.9 the Investigating Officer, no 20 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 20 / 36 proof of those statements as having either been stated or not stated to the Investigating Officer during investigation was taken and, as such, what appeared to me was that the attentions which were drawn of the witnesses were bald statements without any evidentiary value which fact Sri Singh also acceded to. Thus, what I find is that there is consistent support to the manner of occurrence which was narrated by P.W.2 in Court from P.W.3 Ram Roshan Singh, P.W.5 Ashthami Ram, P.W.6 Ram Kripal Singh and P.W.7 Ashok Kumar Singh.
15. The evidence of P.W.1 Dr. S.P. Srivastava who held post-mortem examination on the three dead bodies may be noticed. P.W.1 stated that he had held post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Ramchandra Singh, Paras Nath Singh and Uma Shankar Singh on 03.04.1988 while he was attached to Sadar Hospital, Arrah. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Ramchandra Singh:-
(i) One lacerated wound at left upper arm on the medial aspect. The margin of the wound was charred with laceration of muscles and the wound was measuring 3½" x 3" x bone deep.
(ii) One lacerated wound with charring and burning of skin at the lateral side of the left side of the chest measuring 21 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 21 / 36 2½" x 1" x cavity deep.
(iii) One bruise near right iliac chrest size 2" x ¼". On dissection, P.W.1 found that the muscles corresponding to Injury No. I were lacerated and the blood was still coming out of the wound. On dissection of Injury No. II, P.W.1 found 8th, 9th and 10th ribs fractured with blood and blood clots in the chest cavity. The left lung was found lacerated. On dissection of Injury No. III, five metal like substances were taken out from the wound and preserved. The small intestine was found lacerated. The muscles of the abdominal cavity were also found lacerated with laceration of the spleen and lever. The omentum was also found lacerated. Six metalic substances which were recovered from the injuries were preserved and sealed and were handed over to the police. In the opinion of P.W.1, all the injuries were ante-mortem caused by hard and blunt substance which were sufficient to cause death. P.W.1 stated that charring and burning around the injuries suggested that the firing had been made from a very close proximity and that the injuries might have been caused by one shot. P.W.1 further stated that the bladder of Ramchandra Singh was found empty which suggested that the deceased had eased just before his death.
As regards the dead body of Paras Nath Singh, 22 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 22 / 36 P.W.1 found the following injuries on it:
(i) One lacerated wound 1/6" x 1/6" x cavity deep at the right lumber region. P.W.1 found blood coming out of the wound.
(ii) One lacerated wound at the left lumber region ½" x ½" x cavity deep. Blood was also coming out of this wound.
On dissection of the injuries, P.W.1 found laceration of the small intestine as also of the 12th and 1st vertebra. The ascending column was also found lacerated with lever and kidney. In the opinion of P.W.1, the above noted injuries were ante- mortem in nature caused by fire arm possibly by a rifle and the injuries had been caused by one shot.
So far as the dead body of Uma Shankar Singh is concerned, P.W.1 found the following injuries on it:
(i) One lacerated wound on the upper part of right thigh ¼" in diameter. Blood was found oozing out of the wound.
(ii) One lacerated wound on the right buttock 1/6" in diameter. Blood was found coming out of the wound.
On dissection of Injury No. 1 noted above, P.W.1 found that there was laceration of all the muscles of thigh and three metalic substances were lodged in it which were taken out. On dissection of Injury No. 2, P.W.1 found laceration of entire 23 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 23 / 36 muscles of the hip and on opening of the abdomen and peritoneal cavity, those were found full of blood with perforation of small intestine through the very wound. Two tin like metalic substances were taken out with five other tin likes metalic substances which were preserved and handed over to the Constable. In the opinion of P.W.1, the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by fire arm, may be a rifle, and the death had occurred on account of shock and hemorrhage resulting out of the injuries as was the case also with deceased Paras Nath Singh. The injuries in the opinion of P.W.1 were sufficient to cause death and the injuries had been caused by one shot. P.W.1 also stated that deceased Uma Shankar Singh and Paras Nath Singh could have survived for a few hours after sustaining the injuries.
16. Thus, what appears from the evidence of P.W.1 is that there is a general support to the allegation that a single shot was fired at each of the three deceased and those shots individually had caused at least two injuries upon each of the injured except there being an additional injury on the dead body of Ramchandra Singh.
17. Sri Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant was submitting that the finding of more than one injuries on the three dead bodies was suggestive of the fact that there were 24 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 24 / 36 at least two shots fired at each of the deceased. In my considered view, the above argument overlooks the evidence of P.W.1 who had very categorically stated that the injuries found on each of the three dead bodies, could have been caused by a single shot fired from a weapon like rifle. While considering the evidence of P.W.1, Sri Singh could not show to me that any of the injuries which were found on the three dead bodies could have resulted from a bullet or such a cartridge which would cause a single wound. What appears from the dimensions of the injuries which were recorded by P.W.1 on the dead bodies of Paras Nath Singh and Uma Shankar Singh is that the shot had been fired from a distance more than of six feet and that the injuries had been caused by some pellet like substance as the dimensions of those injuries in the case of Uma Shankar Singh and Paras Nath Singh were, like, 1/6" x 1/6" or ¼" x ¼", as appears from paragraph 5 of the evidence of P.W.1 relating to description of injuries found on the dead body of Uma Shankar Singh. The shots which caused injuries on Paras Nath Singh and Uma Shankar Singh were never disputed even before the trial Court to have been caused from a very close range. The evidence of witnesses also state that while firing the shot, this appellant was also moving backward and forward and while their evidence indicated that there could be 25 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 25 / 36 close proximity between the deceased Ramchandra Singh and the present appellant when he fired the first shot, that close distance was lacking while he was firing the shots at Uma Shankar Singh and Paras Nath Singh. The recovery of small metalic substances after dissection of injuries found on the dead bodies of Paras Nath Singh and Uma Shankar Singh suggests as if a cartridge which was containing pellets had been used in firing the shots. As regards the dimension of injury found on Ramchandra Singh, one may submit that the dimension was bigger which was varying from 3½" x 3" to 2½" x 1". That bigger dimension of injuries which was recorded by P.W.1 on the dead body of Ramchandra Singh is clearly discernable from the fact that the doctor had found charring around the wounds and he was very much clear in his opinion that the shot fired at Ramchandra Singh was from a very close range and within six feet, as appears from paragraph 7 of P.W.1. When a shot is fired from a very close range, even pellets are known to create bigger wound of entry by entering wounds in cluster. This appears to be the case in case of firing of three shots at the deceased. This further explains as to why more than one injuries could be found on three dead bodies if pellet had been fired, there would be dispersal of the pellets and thus, causing multiple injuries or injuries which could be numerous. This sufficiently takes care of 26 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 26 / 36 the submission of Sri Singh as regards the finding of injuries more than one in number on the three dead bodies.
Thus, on examination of the evidence both oral and medical, what I find is that there was no contradiction between the two, rather the oral evidence was getting full corroborative support from the medical evidence and, as such, I do not find any merit in the submission that witnesses were not narrating the manner of occurrence correctly and were rather telling lies on it.
18. One of the submissions of Sri Singh was that the informant was an aggressor and that the present appellant was in possession of the huge Mahua tree, the flowers of which were being picked up by the children of the appellant. The First Information Report did not contain any description of the land in question. But, as appears from the evidence of P.W.2 in paragraph 2, which evidence has not been challenged by the defence during the long cross-examination of the witness, that the homestead land of the informant inclusive of the dilapidated mud built house as also the fallow land had been put into one plot during the survey proceedings and was allotted survey plot no. 2840. To the west of plot no. 2840, which was the undisputed plot belonging to the informant, was situated another Plot No. 2855 which was recorded in the old survey proceeding as " Gair Mazarua Malik" land and in 27 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 27 / 36 the revisional survey, it had been recorded in the name of Aas Mohammad Mian. It was stated that there was only one Mahua tree in Plot No. 2855, which was belonging to Ashthami Ram (P.W.5). This fact has also been stated by P.W.5 Ashthami Ram in his cross-examination (paragraph 3) that the Mahua tree was belonging to him and was in his possession. It was stated that in the same Plot No. 2855, there were four other Mahua trees out of which, two had been planted by the forefather of the informant and the northern of the two were planted by the forefather of the informant which was situated south of the house of the informant was quite huge and that was also at a distance of 50 to 55 yards towards south of the house of present appellant. It had further been stated by the informant that the Mahua tree which was situated on his plot no. 2840, some part of it had gone into the part of plot no. 2855 from west and that the present appellant had in order to taking possession of the huge Mahua tree which was situated at Plot No. 2840 which was belonging to the informant, had got the plot measured one day prior to the occurrence so as to taking possession over it. The Investigating Officer (P.W.9) had also inspected the place of occurrence and had found that the place of occurrence was the part of the Khalihan of the informant which was situated south-west of his house and that Plot No. 2855 was 28 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 28 / 36 situated west of plot no. 2840 and the huge Mahua tree was situated on plot no. 2855. Thus, what appears is that the huge Mahua tree, the flowers of which were being picked up by the children of the house of this appellant, as appears admitted by the appellant himself, did not belong to him. He did not lay any claims over plot no. 2855 or plot no. 2840 even by throwing a suggestion to any of the witnesses specially P.W.2 the informant of the case. Thus, the submission that the tree was in possession of this appellant Ram Kumar Singh appears without any basis. The preponderance of probability suggests that the tree may not be in possession of the informant as well or may be that he had led the claim not over the tree but over the flowers and fruits of the tree which used to fall in his land on account of the huge development of the tree, as appears stated by him, that some part of it had trespassed into his land, as appears stated by him, in paragraph 2 of his evidence. As such, the prosecution evidence that Ramchandra Singh had forbidden the family members of the present appellant from picking up of the Mahua flowers in my view could not be said to be an act excessive enough so as to warranting the extreme retaliation from the appellant that not only he but his three brothers should be killed.
19. It is true that P.W.9 has admitted and which fact 29 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 29 / 36 is not disputed that this appellant Ram Kumar Singh along with his wife Rajkeshwar Devi with their son Vijay Kumar Singh besides with Krishna Kumar Singh, the brother of the appellant had appeared before the police at the same time when the informant was there with the dead body of Ramchandra Singh and two injured, namely, Paras Nath Singh and Uma Shankar Singh and it may also be true that he had surrendered his rifle before the police but that conduct of the appellant and his family members may not give any justifiable reasons for terminating the three lives. It also appears from the evidence of P.W.9 the Investigation Officer in paragraph 17 that the son and wife and this appellant were found bearing injuries and they had been sent for medical examination. It is not disputed that D.W.1 Dr. Lallan Prasad Singh had examined Vijay Kumar Singh son of this appellant on 03.04.1988 at 10.30 a.m. and found following injuries on his person:
(i) Swelling over right upper arm.
(ii) Bruises 4" x 1" on the left scapular region.
(iii) Abrasion on the right elbow joint.
The injuries in the opinion of D.W.1 were caused by hard and blunt substance and were simple in nature.
As regards Rajkeshwar Devi wife of this appellant Ram Kumar Singh, she was found bearing the following injuries 30 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 30 / 36 on her person:
(i) Lacerated cut injuries 1" x ¼" x ¼" on the right parietal region of the skull.
(ii) Bruises 4" x 1" on the right scapular region.
The injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance during 24 hours of the examination of the said injured by D.W.1. What appears further from the evidence of D.W.1 is that he had also examined Krishna Kumar Yadav son of late Sheolakhan Singh, that's, the full brother of the appellant who was acquitted by the learned trial Court, and had found a lacerated cut injury 1½" x ¼" x ¼" on the left parietal region of skull. D.W.1 stated that the injuries were simple and superficial in nature as regards those found on all three injured.
20. Sri Singh had submitted that no witness had stated that he had assaulted the three injured in the same transaction or had seen anyone of the above three bearing any injury at the time of occurrence or at the place of occurrence and, as such, had not stated as to how the three injured, i.e., the wife, son and another person happened to have those injuries on their persons. Sri Singh submitted that the witnesses by not offering any explanation as regards the injuries on the persons of the wife and son of the present appellant appear guilty of suppressing some vital 31 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 31 / 36 facts and, as such, were making false statement on the most material parts of the prosecution story. It was submitted by Sri Singh that the prosecution was obligated to explain the injuries on the three persons, i.e., the wife of the present appellant, his son and the third, namely, Krishna Kumar Yadav. The submission of Sri Singh appeared attractive at the first blush but when I examined the submission deeply, what I found was that the principle of explaining the injuries on accused may not be applicable in the present case as there is no evidence that Rajkeshwar Devi the wife of the appellant was an accused in the present case. The accused persons who were put on trial, as may appear from the impugned judgment, were this appellant and one Krishan Kumar Singh. The case of Vijay Kumar Singh had been sent to the children Court. Rajkeshwar Devi had never figured as accused persons in the present case and even if assuming that indeed there had been some injuries which had been examined by D.W.1, the prosecution was not obliged to explain as to how those persons happened to have those injuries.
21. The principle of explaining the injuries on accused, which was first enunciated in Mohar Rai Vs. The State of Bihar [AIR (55) 1968 SC 1281] which was subsequently adopted and reiterated in Lakshmi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar [(1976) 32 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 32 / 36 4 SCC 394] as also in Vijayee Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. [(1990) 3 SCC 190] besides in Anil Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [2005 SCC (Cri.) 178], could be applicable only when it is shown from the evidence of the prosecution that the accused had received injuries in the course of the same incident or in the same transaction. In my considered view, not only the above, the defence must also point out from the evidence of the prosecution that the accused persons had indeed intended to cause those injuries to the accused in the course of the same transaction or the same incident. In other words, what the defence has to show by probability or otherwise is that the informant and his witnesses had intentionally assaulted the accused and had inflicted injuries to him so as to giving rise to an occasion for the accused to act in exercise of his right of self defence. The other aspect of the above principle is that if the injuries, sustained by the accused, were minor and superficial and also, where the evidence is clear and cogent coming from the witnesses who were so disinterested and independent that it was far out-weighing the fact of omission on the part of the prosecution then the prosecution did not owe any obligation to explain the injuries found on the accused persons. But most of all, it was incumbent upon the defence to show either from the cross-examination of the witnesses or from some 33 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 33 / 36 admitted documents that the accused persons had sustained injuries in the course of the same incident and at about the same time. Here in the present case, Rajkeshwar Devi the wife of the appellant was not the accused and there is no evidence that either Krishan Kumar Singh or the above named two persons Rajkeshwar Devi and Vijay Kumar Singh had received injuries during the same incident and at the same time at which the present incident of three murders had taken place. Infact there is nothing on the record of this case, either in the form of the prosecution evidence or through the defence evidence that anyone out of the prosecution witnesses or the three deceased had attacked the accused or Rajkeshwar Devi even with the slightest intention of causing harm to them in course of the same incidence or the same transaction. Besides, the injuries found by D.W.1 on any of the three, that's, Vijay Kumar Singh, Rajkeshwar Devi and Krishna Kumar Singh were too trivial to justify the grievance of the defence that those were not explained by the prosecution. Thus, what appears to me is that the principle enunciated in Mohar Rai, Lakshmi Singh etc. were at all not applicable in the present case. The appellant could not be said to have acted in defence of himself. It was an act which was not only outrageous, but appears committed with full determination and knowledge of killing three persons one after the other by firing 34 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 34 / 36 shots from his rifle.
22. In the above connection, one contention of Sri Singh has to be noticed. Sri Singh was submitting that at the time of surrendering before the police, as admitted by P.W.9 and which fact is not disputed by the defence, the appellant had surrendered his rifle by carrying it with him up to the police station. The Investigating Officer had admitted that he seized the rifle and sent it for examination. Sri Singh had drawn my attention towards the evidence of D.W.2 Naresh Mohan Jha who was the Sergeant Major of Police Lines, Arrah on 25.04.1988 and who after examining and testing rifle no. 84AB-3186 found no evidence of its use though the weapon was found effective. This witness D.W.2 had given the evidence that he did not find any evidence indicative of the rifle having been fired and, as such, had submitted the report Ext.C. The cross-examination evidence of this witness is important. He stated that if the weapon had been cleaned properly after it had been fired, the signs of firing shall be erased. He further stated in his cross-examination that the rifle in question had been sent to him after 21 days of its seizure and was categorically admitting that after such a long time, the evidence of the weapon having been fired was bound to be erased. He was also honest in admitting that he was not a ballistic expert and the weapon had not 35 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 35 / 36 been tested for the specific purpose forensically or chemically nor it had been tested microscopically. The evidence of witnesses indicated (see P.W.2, paragraph-1) that the appellant was an officer in the police department and in spite of P.W.9 the Investigating Officer having stated that he had sniffed the barrel of the gun and had found some evidence of its use, he was probably favouring the present appellant by not sending it to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its chemical test or to a ballistic expert for appropriate test. The real test should have been to chemically examine the barrel of the rifle so as to finding out as to whether the weapon had been used in firing shots. That test having not been carried out, it is very difficult for me to accept that the weapon had not been used in firing the shots.
23. Having noticed the evidence and having examined the arguments of the rival sides, what I find is that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the charge that it was this appellant who had fired from his rifle at the three deceased and had killed them and thus it has succeeded in bringing the charge home against the appellant. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed by maintaining the sentences passed upon the appellant. The appellant is on bail. His bond is hereby cancelled. Let him surrender in the Court 36 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.471 of 1991 dt.27-08-2014 36 / 36 below to serve out the sentences imposed upon him by the trial Court.
(Dharnidhar Jha, J.) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.:- I agree.
(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
Sanjay/
N.A.F.R.
U T