Patna High Court
Bhanu Pratap Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 8 November, 2023
Author: Nawneet Kumar Pandey
Bench: Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Nawneet Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.349 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-321 Year-2001 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o- Late Doman Singh, Resident of Village- Dovri, P.S.-
Chainpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan
Mr. Mr.Md. Helal Ahmad
For the Informant Mr. Ansul
Ms. Aparna Arun
For the State Mr.S.B.Verma, APP
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Date : 08-11-2023
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant
under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
for setting the aside the judgment dated 04.02.2017 and order of
sentence dated 13.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-IVth, Kaimur at Bhabua in Sessions Trial No.
174 of 2002/346/2016 (R-3902/2014), arising out of P.S.
Bhabhua, FIR No. 321 of 2001, whereby the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
under Imprisonment Fine (Rs.) In default of
Section fine
302/34 of the RI for life 10,000/- SI for six
IPC months
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023
2/25
2. The informant of this case is P.W.2, Kamlapati
Singh, the father of the deceased, Ranvijay Bahadur Singh. The
fardbayan of P.W.2 was recorded on 03.11.2001 at 11.00 a.m., at
the residence of the deceased Ranvijay Bahadur Singh who was
an advocate in Bhabua District Court. The informant mentioned
in the fardbayan that he was present in his village and in the
morning of 03.11.2001 at about 7.00. A.M., he came to know
that the previous evening, his son was murdered by firing at
6.00 P.M. at his house, situated in Bhabua. Having heard about
the incident, the informant came to Bhabua and he came to
know that the firing was made at the Darwaza of the deceased.
The deceased was carried to the hospital, where the doctors
declared him as dead. Due to shock, the informant became
unconscious. It has been mentioned further that at the time of
occurrence, the daughter-in-law of the informant (wife of the
deceased), was present in her house and she was in an
unconscious state (at the time of fardbayan). The informant also
mentioned in the fardbayan that the detailed description of the
occurrence would be given when his daughter-in-law would
regain her consciousness.
3. On the basis of the fardbayan of the informant
Bhabua P.S.Case No. 321 of 2001 (Exhibit-2) was registered
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023
3/25
against unknown for commission of the offences punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
During investigation, the involvement of seven accused persons
including the appellant was found. The Investigating Authorities
submitted the charge sheet No.06 of 2002 on 05.01.2002 against
four accused persons, namely, Bhanu Pratap Singh (the
appellant), Dhananjay Singh (died), Bhoga Singh (died) and
Ramesh Singh (acquitted), for commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 302/120B of the IPC and Section 27
of the Arms Act. The investigation against three accused persons
remained pending. After splitting, the case of all these four
accused persons were committed to the court of sessions. The
charges were framed against them on 3rd May, 2003 under
Sections 302/34, 120B of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arm
Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. Co-accused Bhoga Singh died during the pendency of the
trial and the proceeding against him was dropped, vide order
dated 13.06.2008.
4. Co-accused Dhananjay Singh was also convicted
along with the appellant in the present case and he was also
sentenced, as indicated above, but he died during the pendency
of his Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 364 of 2017. After the death of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023
4/25
Dhananjya Singh, Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 364 of 2017 abated.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that co-accused
Ramesh Singh, who is brother of Bhoga Singh was also tried
with other accused persons in Sessions Trial No. 174 of 2002,
was acquitted by the learned trial court.
6. In order to prove its case, altogether 13
witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.
7. The informant of this case is P.W.2, Kamlapati
Singh, the father of the deceased. At the time of occurrence, he
was not present at the residence of the deceased situated in
Bhabua town, where he was murdered. At that time, he was in
his village, namely, Kori. This witness heard about the
occurrence on the next morning i.e. on 03.11.2001. Having
heard about the occurrence, he came to his house situated in
Bhabua. Then he came to know that his son was murdered at his
door when he returned from the court. (The deceased was a
practicing lawyer). He stated that his son was brought to the
hospital where he was declared dead. At the time of occurrence,
the deceased, his wife (P.W.6) and his two sons Shalu and Aashu
were present in the house. The brother-in-law (sala) of the
deceased namely Bablu, P.W.11 was also present in the house at
the time of occurrence. When this witness went to his house in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023
5/25
Bhabua, his daughter-in-law was in unconscious state and was
not in a position to state anything. His (the informant's)
grandsons were also not in a condition to narrate about the
occurrence as they were not in normal mental condition. During
presence of this witness in his Bhabua-situated house, the police
came and recorded his fardbayan (Exhibit-3). This witness
deposed further that P.W.11 Bablu Singh, who is the resident of
village Baruna, was the brother-in-law (sala) of the deceased.
Co-accused Bhoga Singh had lodged a case against P.W.11 for
commission of the offences under Section 307 of the IPC and
Section 27 of the Arms Act. That case was prior to the present
case. After that case, P.W.11 was residing in the house of the
deceased. The deceased was a lawyer practicing in Bhabua Civil
Court. He was doing pairvi in that case on behalf of P.W.11. The
deceased had made efforts to get that case compromised, which
was the reason why co-accused Bhoga Singh was not happy
with the deceased. Co-accused Bhoga Singh had asked the
deceased to oust P.W.11 from his house, but the deceased did not
do so. This witness deposed further that the native village of his
wife (wife of this witness) and the native place of the wife of
co-accused Bhoga Singh was in same, namely, village Mokri.
Before the occurrence, the wife of this witness (mother of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023
6/25
deceased) had gone to village Mokri, where she met the mother-
in-law (sass) of co-accused Bhoga Singh and she (mother-in-
law of the deceased) had asked her for compromise in the case,
in which P.W.11 was an accused, to which the mother-in-law of
Bhoga Singh replied that Bhoga Singh had stated that he would
take blood for blood and would not spare even the persons who
were giving patronage to P.W.11. This witness stated further that
at the occasion of the Shradh Karma of the deceased, P.W.11,
along with one Ramashish Singh, had come to his village Kori
and they told this witness that they identified Bhoga Singh,
Bhanu Pratap Singh (appellant), Ramesh Singh and Dhananjay
Singh. This witness thereafter went to the police station and
apprised the investigating officer of this fact, but the
investigating officer replied that the statement of this witness
had already been recorded and he would record the statement of
P.W.11. This witness deposed further that these four accused
persons in deep conspiracy had murdered his son. During
deposition of this witness, three out of four accused persons
were present in the dock, but this witness did not identify any of
them as he had not seen them before.
8. P.W.5 Sharda Devi is the mother of the deceased.
At the time of occurrence, she was also not present at the place
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023
7/25
of occurrence, rather she was in her native place (Maika) at
village Mokri. She deposed further that P.W.11 Bablu, who is
brother-in-law of the deceased, had enmity with Bhoga Singh.
Her son (son of this witness) was doing pairvi in the case lodged
against Bablu Singh. Due to fear of Bhoga Singh, Bablu was
residing in the house of the deceased. Bhoga Singh etc. were
threatening the deceased to refrain from doing pairvi in that
case. When this witness had gone to her native place (naihar),
she met the mother-in-law of Bhoga Singh. This witness asked
the mother-in-law of Bhoga Singh to persuade Bhoga Singh for
compromise in the case lodged against P.W.11. The mother-in-
law of Bhoga Singh replied that they were not ready for
compromise. This witness after getting the information about
the occurrence, came to her house in Bhabua. Her daughter-in-
law was in unconscious state. There Bablu (P.W.11) apprised
this witness that Bhoga Singh and two others had committed
murder of the deceased by firing shot. In her cross-examination,
this witness stated that she came to Bhabua in the night of
occurrence at about 9-10 P.M. In paragraph 10 of her cross-
examination, this witness stated that P.W.11 had not gone to her
village after the case lodged by Bhoga Singh. P.W.11 after that
case, was residing in her house, (the house of this witness in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023
8/25
Bhabua).
9. P.W.6 Sangeeta Singh is the widow of the
deceased. At the time of occurrence, she was present inside her
house along with her two sons and her brother (P.W.11). This
witness deposed that at the time of occurrence, she was present
in the veranda of the first floor of the house. Bablu (P.W.11) was
also there. Her son Shalu was in the room situated on ground
floor. On that day, she was waiting for her husband. When her
husband came to the house and asked to open the door, this
witness heard the sound of firing. She rushed to the ground floor
but her brother Bablu (P.W.11) remained in the veranda. Bablu
saw, from the veranda of the first floor, that three persons were
fleeing away after firing on the deceased. This witness, when
came at Darwaza, saw her husband in injured condition. He had
suffered fire shot at his chest. Bablu was shouting that the
miscreants were his co-villagers. He was also shouting that
Bhoga Singh fled away after killing the deceased. This witness
and P.W.11 brought the deceased to the hospital where he was
declared dead. She also stated that there was enmity between
P.W.11 and co-accused Bhoga Singh and Bhoga Singh had
lodged a case against P.W.11. The husband of this witness was
attempting for an amicable compromise in that case. This
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023
9/25
witness did not identify the appellant, Ramesh Kumar Singh and
Dhananjy Singh, who were present in the dock.
10. P.W.4, Ravi Shankar Singh happens to be the
father-in-law of the deceased and father of P.W.11. On the day
of occurrence, he was in his village. He got the information
about the occurrence on the next day at 8.00 A.M.. This witness
went to Bhabua at the house of the deceased and came to know
that he was shot dead at his darwaza. He came to know that his
son-in-law was brought to the hospital where the doctors
declared him dead. When this witness went to the house of the
deceased, he found his daughter in an unconscious state. This
witness stated further that one month prior to the occurrence,
someone had fired at the accused Bhoga Singh and Bhoga Singh
had falsely implicated his son P.W. 11 in that case. He stated
further that his son was residing at the house of the deceased and
the deceased was making efforts for compromise in that case.
He stated further that on 25.10.2001, a meeting was held at the
residence of Bhoga Singh in which co-accused Ramesh Sigh
and the appellant along with 2-4 other persons participated and
they hatched up a conspiracy to murder the deceased, and to
meet the expenses, Rs. 50,000/- were collected after selling rice.
He stated further that all the four accused persons in a deep
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023
10/25
conspiracy had murdered his son-in-law. This witness identified
the accused persons present in the dock. He stated in paragraph
no.3 of his deposition that on 03.11.2001 when his daughter
regained her consciousness for a short while, she apprised this
witness that the appellant was roaming in nearby street along
with 2-4 persons. In paragraph no.4, this witness has stated that
he went to village Kori at the occasion of Sharadh of the
deceased where P.W.11 and one Ramashray Singh told this
witness that Bhoga Singh, Ramesh Singh, Bhanu Pratap Singh
(appellant) and Dhananjy Singh had committed murder of
Ranvijay. P.W.11 also apprised this witness that he was an
accused in a case under Section 307 of the IPC which was the
reason that he was not producing himself for recording his
statement before the Investigating Authorities.
11. P.W.3 Ganesh Singh is a practicing lawyer of
Bhabua District Court and he is the neighbour of the deceased.
He deposed that soon before the occurrence he saw the deceased
talking with three persons. He did not identify the persons who
were with the deceased. This witness proceeded towards the
market, whereas the deceased proceeded towards his house.
When this witness reached near Nagarpalika gate, he heard the
sound of firing. Later on, he heard that Ranvijay Singh had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023
11/25
suffered fire shot injury. Meanwhile, he saw some persons
carrying the deceased towards hospital. This witness also
accompanied those persons and went to the hospital where the
doctors declared Ranvijay Singh dead. This witness deposed
that the accused persons present in the dock were not amongst
the persons, who were along with the deceased on the day of
occurrence.
12. P.W.11 Bablu Singh is the sole eye-witness who
was present at the house of the deceased along with wife and
children of the deceased at the time of occurrence. This witness
deposed that the deceased was his brother-in-law (bahnoi). He
was murdered on 02.11.2001 at about 6.00 P.M. At that time,
this witness was present in the balcony situated at the roof of the
house of the deceased. The deceased came from the court and
three persons were also with him. One of them was the
appellant, the second was co-accused Bhoga Singh and the third
was Ramesh Singh. Bhoga Singh and Ramesh Singh caught
hold of the hands of the deceased and Bhanu Singh (appellant)
fired in the chest of the deceased. He fell down on the ground
and the miscreants fled away through the street. The deceased
was brought to the hospital, but this witness soon thereafter
went from the hospital as there was a case under Section 307 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023
12/25
the IPC and he was apprehending his arrest in that case. He
further deposed that he surrendered in that case and thereafter
his statement was recorded. During cross-examination, he has
stated that on 22.04.2022, he had sent a letter from jail to the
court of CJM. At the time of recording of his deposition, the
letter dated 22.04.2002 sent by this witness from jail to the court
of CJM, was shown to him by the defence and this witness
identified his signature on that letter which has been marked as
Exhibit-A. He deposed that he surrendered on 20.12.2001 i.e.
after some days of murder of the deceased. In paragraph 19 of
his cross-examination, this witness stated that before his
surrender in the court below, he met the informant and P.W.6
(wife of the deceased) on 18th December and he told the names
of the accused persons to them on 18th December. In paragraph
21, this witness stated that after the occurrence, he had never
gone to the village Kori. He met the father of the deceased
(informant) in Bhabua itself. He stated that the deceased was
also in active politics and he was a candidate of MLA from
Samta Party.
13. P.W. 1 and P.W.2 are the formal witnesses.
P.W.1 is an advocate clerk. He identified the signature and
handwriting of the then ASI Anil Kumar Karn on formal FIR,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023
13/25
which has been marked as Exhibit-1 and P.W. 12 identified his
signature on inquest report (Exhibit-7).
14. P.Ws. 10 and 13 are the doctors and members
of the Medical Board, which conducted the postmortem on the
dead-body of the deceased. The post-mortem report has been
marked as Exhibit-6. The following external injuries were found
on the dead-body and the doctors opined as under:-
External injuries.
1. An irregularly circular lacerated
wound of 1.5 cm diameter margin inverted
tattooed on right anterior of chest in the left
third intercoastal space 2½" lateral to mid line
of chest cavity depth with corresponding shirt
and Ganji burnt and torn. It was wound of
entry.
2. An irregularly circular lacerated
wound of 3.5 cm diameter margin inverted
and irregular over left side back of the chest
near mid linear border of left scapula 2½"
lateral to mid-line of the back of chest of chest
cavity depth with torn Ganji, shirt and black
clot with corresponding wound. It was wound
of exit.
Opinion
Above noted injuries, external and
internal were ante mortem, grievous and fatal
caused by fire-arms from close range.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023
14/25
Death is excessive haemorrhage
and shock arising from above noted injuries.
Time elapsed since death PM examination
within 18 to 24 hours.
15. P.W.7 Chandradeo Sigh @ Danji Singh hailed
from the same village Baruna wherefrom co-accused Bhoga
Singh and P.W.11 Bablu Singh hailed. At the time of occurrence,
this witness was present in Baruna village. He heard on
03.11.2001that someone had murdered Ranvijay Singh. He deposed that Bhoga Singh was his co-villager. He stated further that prior to the present occurrence, someone had fired at Bhoga Singh, due to which he was angry.
16. As discussed above, P.W.4 Ravi Shankar Singh, father-in-law of the deceased, deposed that the accused persons had collected money to meet the expenses of the conspiracy of the murder of the deceased by selling rice. P.W.8 Nabirasul Ansari @ Nagu Mian was the person who had weighed the rice. He deposed that he was engaged in weighing ration. One Phoolchand Singh had purchased some rice, which this witness had weighed.
17. P.W.9 Anil Kumar Karn is the Investigation Officer. This witness deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence and the place where the dead-body was found was a Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023 15/25 pucca construction and the bloodstains were found thereon. A pellet of .315 bore was also found from the place of occurrence which was seized and the seizure list was prepared which is Exhibit-4. This witness recorded the statements of the witnesses and after conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet. He deposed that P.W.11 was in jail in connection with Case No. 263 of 2001 and his statement was recorded in jail.
18. The following documentary evidences have been exhibited by the prosecution in addition to the oral evidences:-
Exhibit-1 Fardbayan written by
Anil Kumar Karn O/C
Bhabua
Exhibit-2 Formal FIR written
Sikandar Mandal
Exhibit-3 Signature of Kamlapati
Singh on fardbayan and
protest petition.
Exhibit-4 Carbon copy of the
seizure list
Exhibit-5 Carbon copy of inquest
report
Exhibit-6 Postmortem report
Exhibit-7 Signature of Subhash
Chandra Singh on the
inquest report
Exhibit-A An application of Bablu
Singh dated 22.04.2002
19. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023 16/25 the accused persons were questioned by the learned trial court to enable them to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidences against them. The accused persons answered all those questions in negative and pleaded their complete innocence.
20. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is only one eye-witness in this case who is Bablu Singh, P.W.11. He is brother-in-law of the deceased. He claimed that he was present in the house of the deceased at the time of occurrence and he had seen the appellant firing in the chest of the deceased, whereas co-accused Bhoga Singh (deceased) and co-accused Ramesh Singh (acquitted by the learned trial court), had caught hold of the deceased. But the deposition of this witness is not believable as there are a number of contradictions in his statement and the statements of other witnesses which create doubts on involvement of the appellant in the alleged occurrence. P.W. 2, who is father of the deceased and the informant, did not name any of the accused persons in the fardbayan. He heard the names of the accused persons, for the first time, from P.W.11 Bablu Singh and one Ramashish Singh (not examined) when they had come in the village Kori at the occasion of Sharadh ceremony of the deceased, but P.W.11 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023 17/25 Bablu Singh, during his deposition, stated that he never went to the village Kori after the occurrence had taken place. The learned counsel has submitted further that it is surprising that the village Kori was situated merely at a distance of 30 kms from Bhabua, but the informant who is father of the deceased, came to know about the occurrence in the next morning, whereas the deceased is alleged to have been killed at 6.00 P.M. in the preceding evening. He has submitted further that during deposition of P.W. 11, he identified his signature on Exhibit-A. P.W.11 did not contradict Exhibit-A, which is a letter sent by him to the CJM, forwarded by the Jail Authority, in which P.W.11 mentioned about the innocence of the accused persons. Learned counsel has further submitted that P.W.11 Bablu Singh, who is the sole eye-witness, has deposed in paragraph No.19 of his deposition that he met his sister and father of the deceased on 18th December and he disclosed the names of the accused persons to them, but his sister P.W.6 (wife of the deceased) did not name the appellant in her deposition, whereas her brother P.W.11 has disclosed the name to her on 18th December, much prior to recording of her deposition in court. The statement of the sole eye-witness (P.W.11) is not only contradicted by the depositions of other prosecution witnesses, but also it is self- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023 18/25 contradictory. In paragraph no. 22 of his deposition, P.W.11 deposed that he came to the hospital with his sister (P.W.6), but in paragraph no.34 of the deposition he deposed that his sister was not with him in the hospital. She became unconscious at her darwaza 2-3 minutes after the occurrence. He (P.W.11) brought the injured (deceased) to the hospital with the help of Mohalla people. Learned counsel has submitted further that from perusal of the deposition of P.W.6, it transpires that just after the occurrence, P.W.11 started shouting that Bhoga Singh had killed the deceased. It also transpires that P.W.11, after the occurrence, had only uttered the name of co-accused Bhoga Singh and not of the appellant or any other co-accused persons, but P.W.11 in his deposition named the appellant as the main assailant. This fact alone makes the involvement of the appellant, in the alleged occurrence, doubtful. Learned counsel has submitted further that P.W.3 Ganesh Singh, who is neighbour of the deceased, had seen the deceased along with three persons soon before the occurrence, but during his deposition in court he stated categorically that the accused persons present in the dock were not amongst the three persons whom he had seen with the deceased on that day. The learned counsel also submitted that Sharda Devi (P.W.5), who is mother of the deceased, deposed Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023 19/25 that at the time of occurrence, she was in her native place (maike). After being informed about the occurrence, she came to Bhabua in the same night at 9-10 P.M. P.W.11, Bablu Singh was present there and he disclosed to this witness that Bhoga Singh and two others had killed the deceased, meaning thereby the name of Bhoga Singh and two others were well within the knowledge of P.W.5 before registration of the FIR. Her husband (P.W.2) lodged the FIR on the next day, but he did not mention in his fardbayan the name of any of the accused persons, whereas on the previous night itself, the names of the accused persons was well within the knowledge of his wife. No circumstances have been put forth showing any reason which prevented his wife from disclosing the names of the accused persons to her husband (informant). Moreover, there is nothing in the deposition of P.W.5 which shows that P.W.11 disclosed the name of the appellant to her, along with co-accused Bhoga Singh.
21. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the informant, has submitted that the sole eye-witness P.W.11, Bablu Singh, had seen the occurrence. In his deposition, he has categorically stated that co-accused Bhoga Singh (died) Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023 20/25 and Ramesh Singh (acquitted by the learned trial court) had caught hold of the deceased and the appellant Bhanu Pratap Singh had fired in his chest. Though there is no other eye- witness, who had seen the specific role of the accused persons, but the circumstances have been corroborated by the other witnesses. P.W.6, who is wife of the deceased, rushed to the ground floor and when she came at her darwaza, she saw her husband in injured condition. Her brother Bablu Singh (P.W.11), who remained present in veranda of the first floor, saw three persons fleeing away after firing on the deceased. Bablu was shouting that the miscreants were his co-villagers. He was also shouting that Bhoga Singh fled away after killing the deceased. Learned counsels have submitted that there is nothing which makes the statement of the wife of the deceased and the sole eye-witness Bablu Singh to disbelieve them and their evidence is above board and corroborated by the medical evidence. Learned counsels have also submitted that the motive for commission of the occurrence has also been established as per the depositions of the witnesses. It has come in the evidences of the prosecution's witnesses that P.W.11, who is brother-in-law (sala) of the deceased, was an accused in a criminal case lodged by co-accused Bhoga Singh for the offence punishable under Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023 21/25 Section 307 of the IPC. The deceased was doing pairvi on behalf of Bablu Singh. He had given shelter to Bablu Singh in his house and the accused persons had threatened the deceased for his extending protection to Bablu Singh. He has also submitted that P.W.11 narrated the entire occurrence to P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.6 and they have stated during their deposition that P.W.11 had disclosed the names of the accused persons to them.
22. We have perused the impugned judgment of the trial court and the lower court's records. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advance on behalf of the parties.
23. As discussed above, the only eye-witness of this case is Bablu Singh, P.W.11, who is brother-in-law of the deceased. As per the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, at the time of occurrence, this witness was present in the balcony of the first floor of the house. He saw the appellant firing in the chest of the deceased and also saw Bhoga Singh and Ramesh Singh catching hold of the deceased. The sister of this witness rushed to the ground floor and saw her husband in injured condition. This witness had seen the occurrence from the balcony of the first floor of the house. The wife of the deceased Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023 22/25 has been examined as P.W.6. She stated in her deposition that her brother was uttering that Bhoga Singh fled away after killing her husband. There is nothing in the deposition of P.W.6 that P.W.11 had named any other accused, except co-accused Bhoga Singh. But P.W.11 in his deposition named the appellant as the main assailant which makes the statement of P.W.11 as doubtful.
Secondly, the informant (P.W.2) and father-in-law of the deceased P.W.4, stated in their depositions that at the occasion of Sharadh ceremony, P.W.11 had come in village Kori with one Ramashish Singh and they disclosed the names of the accused persons to them, but P.W.11, in his deposition, has categorically stated that he had never gone to village Kori after the occurrence. The statements of P.W.2 and P.W.4 are contradicted by the deposition of P.W.11 and this fact alone makes the prosecution's case as well as the involvement of the appellant in the alleged occurrence as doubtful.
Thirdly, as per the prosecution's case, the informant was in his village at the time of occurrence. He came to the place of occurrence in the next morning at 7.00 A.M. The village of this witness is 30 kms away from the place of occurrence. The occurrence had taken place at 6.00 P.M., on 02.11.2001 and this witness heard about the occurrence in the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023 23/25 morning of 03.11.2001. The place of occurrence is not far away from the village of P.W.2. It is rather surprising that the information was transmitted to P.W.2, so late. The wife of P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased, has been examined as P.W.5. As per her deposition, at the time of occurrence, she was in her maike i.e. in village Mokri and in the same night between 9.00 to 10.00 p.m. she came to the house of the deceased in Bhabua. She also deposed that P.W.11 was also present there and he apprised this witness that Bhoga Singh and two other accused persons had committed murder of the deceased by firing shot. There is nothing in the statement of P.W.5 which shows that P.W.11 disclosed the name of the appellant to this witness along with co-accused Bhoga Singh.
Fourthly, P.W.3 Ganesh Singh who is an independent witness and neighbour of the deceased, soon before the occurrence, had seen the deceased along with three persons. Thereafter he proceeded towards market, but when he reached near Nagarpalika gate, he heard the sound of firing. Soon thereafter, he saw the injured being carried to the hospital. This witness also accompanied the injured to the hospital, where the doctors declared him as dead. But this witness stated categorically in his deposition that the accused persons present Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023 24/25 in the dock were not amongst the three persons, who were along with the deceased on the day of occurrence.
Fifthly, P.W.11 sent the letter (Exhibit-A) on 22.04.2002 from the jail to the learned CJM, Bhabua. That letter was shown to P.W.11 during the course of his examination in court. He identified his signature on that letter/application and after his identification, it was marked as Exhibit-A. In that letter, he had mentioned that he had stated to the I.O. that in the present case, the innocent persons were falsely implicated. This fact also creates doubt on the involvement of the appellant in the present case.
24. In view of discussions noted above, we are of the opinion that the appellant Bhanu Pratap Singh deserves acquittal by giving him benefit of doubt. Accordingly, he stands acquitted of the charge of commission of offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
25. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2017 and order of sentence dated 13.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IVth, Kaimur at Bhabua in Sessions Trial No. 174 of 2002/346/2016 (R-3902/2014), arising out of P.S. Bhabhua, FIR No. 321 of 2001, are set aside.
26. The appeal is allowed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2017 dt.08-11-2023 25/25
27. Since the appellant Bhanu Pratap Singh is in custody, let him be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) I agree (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) HR/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 04.09.2023 Uploading Date 14. 11.2023 Transmission Date 14. 11.2023