Jharkhand High Court
Dhirendra Singh vs Ssis Of Testimony Of Pw-1 And Dw-1 That ... on 26 November, 2020
ik THE HGH COURT OF on ARKEL AND AT R ANCHIT
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction}
Cr Appeal (DB) No. 193 of 214
Wath
Cr. Appeal (OB) No. 106 of 2014
With
Cr. Appeal (OB) Na. 140 of 2014
With
(r. Appeal (DB) Na. 192 of 2014
?
oF
in Cr AJB) Na, 193 of 2014
Alok Singh . "
ae
> sen of oie war Sing hah.
Both residents af village and PO Khubhara, P $-Narkop!, DNs
ae TSiralents
In GGA.(DB. No. 100 of 20148 2
Sanjay Suigh, son of Late CI red S neh:
Dhirendra Singh, son of Sri Achhabar Singh.
Both are residents of vill: age- Khukhea, PO and PS. Narkoy ol, Exetrict-
Ranchi. 7 ~- Appellants
Ie Ce Ad No. 140 of 2044:
Styavar Singh, son of Late Chhedi S$} ingh, x esident of villag
and PS- - Narkepi, District-Ranchi.
Xs
ARD
iy Cr ALB) Nae 192 oF2ola:
abal Singh @ Dawal Singh, son of Surendra § gh, feni go g
PO-Khukhara, PS-Narkopi, District Ranchi roo Appellant
Yersus
The State of Jharkhand : Respondents
iit all cases]
(Heard through VC an 16° & 1p"). Noven aber, 2020}
PRESENT
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE c HANDR: ASHEKH. AR
BON BLE MR. PUSTICE 8. ATNARKER BHE NGR. &
Por the Anpellants : Mp. Jitendra *. Singh, Advovate
A . LAG of 2UY4, 192
oF 2014]
rvedi, Advocate
Ne, POO of 2014)
Por the state r Sinha, PP
Ort formant » Mi. Naveen Kumar Jajewa
three unidentified assailants, PAYOR
aN
JUDGMENT
i PPronoUHe wel o OR by , CALF cay 22 Noverrbe:
Bor Shree Chaxovashebhoar > Per Saree Lseandrayhesher & A grieving father has narrated the incident of I rratal murder of 3 :
Shyam Bihari Singh, his son, by six motoreyele-bore assailants on 3 On the basis ~ 3.3 TY Strakia, Si, oe, JLOL2OTT at about 06:30 PM near the shop of Bigan Mah ofthe statement of Surendra Singh which was recorded b Narkapl police station the same day around Q8:00 PM at village Khukhra, Narkopi PS Case No. 01 of 2011 was lodged against Siyava Singh, Saniay eh, Dabal Sing! » Moban Singh, Alok Singh a Munn Singh. The place of occur ence was about | YS. 2 kms fran NP # station and on information that one person has been m:
Khadhee the Investigating Off rhe d proceeded with the | veriiigatian of the informati on, dn course of investigation oc BE Hira Thakur in morder of & Shan mn 3 ihari Sinch has MIA sional statement was recorded, On completion of the j inv Ssligalion a eesheet was laid against them and they were sent up for trial for x =--_ murder of'son of the informant. They have | faced the trial on the charge under sections if), 148, 149, 302/34 and 120-8 af Pthe | indian Penal Code n short, IPC). A separate charge unde sectio ay 7 the Arms Aet was framed 'paint 'Sivave ay Singh, , Dabal Sin ich 1, Mohan Singh and Alok A gad R na. In the tal, the prosecution has exam! ined eleven winesses fo prove the charge against them, All the WHESKE oO belong to the same Incality, The appellants and PW-2 to PW. ~5 are related to each oth ef, albeit distantly, PW-3, PAa » PW-5 and PW-6 are brothers af MSE he uvformant, > i ; ay pe PWel is a fend of the deceased and PW-? is the shap 'keeper. The firing at 33 Singh has taken place near the sh op of Bigan k RQus we Shyam Bihari Weeds » PW2 and URS OF VATS nem toantacd ; ' Soe PW. were projected by the prosecution as eyewilnesses but in the trial ered anc Santu Mahto whe was not examined during the tial PY Ve PVT ansd REET FP heave fienacd konasit. . . PW.l and POF have turned Nostile. The appellants have e mined five WEHRESSES LO Set up a defence thar Shyam Bihari Singh was shot dead by 3 and DWad were examined by Alok @ have taken a plea af aliki that in the evening AAS age Chunba in Ram garh District DAMAT and Lads DW-S were examined to take the defence that three unknowr Persons came ona motorcycle near the shop of Bigan Mahto and fired at Shyam Bihar Singh, a en a The prosecution evidence sans unnecessary details runs like this. PW-1, Ramdheni Singh was standing with SAYS Bihar Singh near the shop of Santa Mahto in the * evening of 01.01.2011. He is a seizure witness who has identified his signature in the Court on the seizare memo and stated that his sistement was recorded by the police, e, However, he has rested from his previous statement and stated that he does not know what articles were seized by the police. He has f latly denied in the Court that Sanjay Singh, Syavar Singh, Dabal Singh, Mohan Singh, Alok Singh and AD Dhirendra Singh came on two motoreycles and fier of them encircied wet Shyam Bihari SB itigh « and started firing indiscriminate ay, while nay Singh and Dhirend a Singh had kept the motoreycles ready | father of Shyam Bihari Singh. has deposed that Singh, sanjay Singh, Alok Singh @ Munna, Mohan Singh, Dabal S: ingh and Dhirendra Singh have shot dead his son. He has identified the appellants in the duck. His statement was recorded by the police and in Bis cross-cxamination he has reaffirmed that his stitement was police at his house, PW-3, Tefu Suigh is brother of the inforn ho Vilage Khukhara he has seen six. persons BOIng away on two motoroyeles. He has heard sour rd oF 5-8 fring gs when he was eni fering the village, He has seen the dead bedy of Shyam Bihar} Singh near the shop of a Bigan Mahto. He has stated that if was a moonlit night and t iere Was Nectric Light near the place of occurrence, About 80-7) vi ill assembled at the place of occurrence and they had taken the dead badly to ers Rad the house of the informant, however, he was urtable to sx y arrongst th villagers who had brought the dead body of Shyam Bihar Si Sr house. In Ais LrOSss-examination fo a su iggestion hy the defences he has denied that at the time of occurrence he was in his house at Bhativarl Tols and on getting information that Shyam Bihar Singh was shot dead he came io the place of oceurren > PW, Pawan Singh is alsa not an eye-witness, z > brother af Gurances O°. oh oho hen weed = Ne is the step brother af Surendra Singh who has deposed in the Court that gy .
Rox US brother told him that Sivavar Singh, Saniay Singh, Dabal §} Singh, Dhirendra Singh and Mohan Singh came on two motoreycies and fired at his son, He has deposed that fifteen days back St yam Bih ari Singh cot had expressed apprehension that Sivavar Singh was in sears ch of: a hitman kali him. He then inquired from Styavar Singh who nad at y demed Ro tag eean animosity with Shyam Bihari Singh and any plan to kill him. He is an inquest witness whe has identified his signature on the inquest report. in his crogs-examiniation he has stated that Surendra Singh called | hire ta inform about the occurrence but at that time he did not tell name aft the accused persons. He has stated that on getting information about murder of Shyam Bihari Singh he became nervous, He has also affirmed i that his statement was recorded by the police on the game night. and that t he has given statement onthe basis of the information given. by his brother PWS, Mahindra Singh is another brother ot Surendra S Singh. about OOO-060)S PM on OL.012011 he: has heard sound of Grin @ g fom Mahto ¥ fol. He has stated that sean th ereafter Surendra Singh car ne running and Xe % tald Rim that Shyam Bihari 5 ingh has been shot dead by SANIay Ne a Suigh, Stvavar Singh, Dabal Singh, Mohan Singh, Dhi enctta Singh and Alok Singh. In his cross-examination he has stated that besid 8 Surendra Singh others have also told him about the occurrence. He adnnits that he cauld know about the aocused persons when Surendra Singh « disc! Josed the names to the police. He has stated that the dead: bady of Shyam Bihari Singh was taken by the polic © for post-mortem at about 11:00 PM the same mught and he was all thrmugh there, but his statement was talon by the police next day. PW-6, Varuna | Singh | ras deposed fy the Court that Surendra Singh came raising Audie that his son has been shot dead, He has gone to the place of occurrence which is near the shop of Lalo Manto. He Sk aS stated that several persons had rushed there and they carried the dead body of Shyam Bihari < Sangh to his house. In his crogsexa lation he has Stated that at the ume of occurs ence iowas lithe dark ang there WAS Ng secticiy, He is the brother of Surendra $j ingh and in his ers ss-examination i Surendra Singh was shouting from the road th at Shyam & > shot dead. He has also said that everyone in the village Was Knowing about the occurrence, PWT | has flatly denied ta have Se Seen areythsiscy TRUS te FR eae x :
anyitng. PWT is the frat Invest igating Officer and PW-9 Aas taken XREMS tse charge of the inv estigation after him, PAW-Li has inst seeurrence and found three bullet marks on the wall of Siahto. In his cross-cxamimation he has stated that general y i prepared in the nighi and theretore the date shown on the in inquest { report is O2,01. 2011 and not the previous night.
3. The learned Judicial Commissioner Vi, Ranchi has ¢ observed that death of Shyam Bihari Singh due to frrearm injury was gol in dispuls, the plea of alibi taken by Mohan Singh yand Alok Singh © Har and there was not thing ont record as also found during the investiga establish that the accused persons were falsely implicated in this case.
feamed Judicial Commissioner has held that testimonies © ect yor bas witnesses are not altogether against the prosecution and the | established that Siyavar Singh, Alok Singh @ Munna," 4 Johan a Dabal. Singh, Sanjay Singh and Dhirendra Singh have c vomnunitte Sel murc af Shyam Bihari Singh in furtherance of comma object of the unlawhal assembly. Accordingly, i §.T. Case Nal &@ of ants were convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine mae sh under we section 302/149 IPC as well as section P2G-B TPC Arms Act, Siyavar Singh, Dabal Singh, Mohan Singh, Alok Sing! Munna have been convicted and sentenced to RU for three y of Rs. 1000" each. There is a default supulation under which the appellants shall suffer ST forsixn months ander sections 302 [PC as wellas 120-R TPC ETI and SI for four months for default in payment of fine under s ot "hakur was acquitted on the ¢ round of lack he the Arms Act, However, Hira ] ofevidence against him.
4. PAY-T amd PW-? who were material witnes ost prosecuhian were declared hostile and on the basis of their statements owas contended that Surendra Singh had never gone to the shop of PM prosecution has failed to establish that six persons, three each riding on twa motoreyeles, have fired upon Shyam Bihari Singh.
§, Tt is well-settled that statement of a hasifle ot E88 in the vross-examination by the defence is in the realm of hears say and | it carmat be EAN w SRE used to discredit the prosecution case, The evidence of a se EL SSR ER cannot destroy the prosecution case or make it doubtful ( oo we hy Oo * ble cannot be doubted mer Statement af a hostile witness (refer: "Srure of ¢ rey SxS ne Indian Evidence Act over by the accused er for some reasc COV ane prosecution in the Court can be cross-examine crose-exanunation sometimes on th ad gh be EAP y Sak nF an » the witness who has been on has pat supported the oy the pr osecution. DP npen the at the witness in his te PMS SB a previous statements recorded under IS g nd admi ts s to have made such «in the cas statements bet makes statements favourable to the acoused, There is no in the idence Act Sar farther croyssewans Hance he IS erass-examtined hy the defence. The Staten PHe CPOSA-EXgmMInation hy the defence remains ur ut "he hostile cx < oy wwe eed iy ce, Ban oy, ~i :
ges ach vide fete "
+ wWitrieass § ee TR and Ais statement in the CTOSS-ERANU NRE the char acter of his eKxamitiation-in-chiek.
Pes esa ee ' - EY 3 mewn wef eek why debatable issue dhat phe es idence of a hostile ey ide Fe Ae prosecution the praseeution or probablises t he definee story, Myre Si ya ch ate of Harvana' char TETISine ¢ nor completely eofface his evidence and comintion upon his testime my EP the Wak fm prosecution and how Hacussed by the Hon' Hawey HT so far ¢ corroborate ag by athe:
he Purp "ey ym weofah MOstile we dimes after rent of a host ile Witness in tested and ther BECO on by the deden eR | wu ts Witness IS as Supparts AS ohse ae Vey OUSe ¢ ie & vad well ay Se cross-exanination of the satd witness insofar os reer fe the navn ad siye ay coaeaissrrny of SHRPGPIS PRE Case OF INE BPOSSCUNGH.
Sey AX woo Yas je
2. PW-] has stated that three masked mien came on : a near the shop of Santu Mahto and started firing at Shyam Bik stated about three unidentified motorcycle shore persons o wes rma ware ae :
sean penge.
tot oy go z 5 ne ee pove Sd a LL peer, Jecing away around the time of occurrence, PW] was confror nied with His previous statement under section 161 CrP in which he has stated about slants firing at Shyam Bihari Singh but 3 unihe oross-exantination by 5 he prosecution he has denied to have made any such steten ore the ~ rmalice Pwo 7, Bigan Mahto is. the shopkeeper. According to the ay prosecution Surendra Singh had gone to this shop for same x and at that time his son was gossiping with PW-1 outside the sho xo of Santu we w Mahto when he was shot dead. But in the Court he has tarned hostile and rey professed that he has not seen murder of Shyam Bihari 8: igh, How. ever, be has stated that he heard tye frecrackers Uke sound and then here WAS comumouon at the place of occurrence. He has seen the dead bady of Shyam Bihan Singh lying at about fifty feet from his shop and he has observed enyply cartridges and blood on the ground: The evidence of these pve wiinesses which ev concess{y supports the prosecution case to the extent that Shyam Bihar! Singh was shot dead in front of the Shops of Santu Manto rid Bigan Mahto can be used | by the prosecution but their omer statements which are contrary to the prosecution case as establish hed by clear and KAN srials brought during the trial cannot be used by the defence.
we ey PPh aes hte 2 eee ' . : : who S. Yhe exposition of law on the subject in the resaid Judgments brooks no argument that the evidence of PAS] and PW.
pontradicts the prosecution case and it is wrong fo oe os ARR Vest Gyrr a See rgb ragad Pre ew €N - ' os Her Say @ Word about presence of Surendra Singh at or near the shop af Bigan Mahto where he had gone {6 buy some merchandise ¢ BRE.
top oF Santu Mahto his presence at the place of occurrence of occurrence is not proved. ft would be equally Raule to "ome dan the vs SSIS OF testimony of PW-1 and DW-1 that the prosecution has failed to we gt prove participation of six persons in the murder of Shyam Bihari 4 Singh.
&, The prosecution which suffered a jolt in the Court from PW.1 and PW-? has finally resied on ferra rear formed on testimony of the avformant. There is no legal hurdis in convicting an accu ised "ton the basis af testimony of a solitary eyewitness. All that is needed is that testi mory of the witness should be reliable and trustworthy, [In other words, evidence tendered by the sole eyewitness is of such sterling quality t doubt In the mind of the Cert about invelvement of the accused in mminitting the crime. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act which provides that no particular number of witnesses is rec quired | mn any case for the praofaPa fact is based on thne- -honoured principle that. ev idence as tO ighed and net counted. In "Dery Sot and Orhers the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that thearu which requires corrokoration to evidence ofthe interested wi be treated an inflexible principle which cart be applied mechan vcally to all cases. In "Parveat Singh v State af MP the Hom ble Supr eme Court has Ae ERS a observed that there can be 4 CORVICTION relying g@ Upom evidence of a soliery vithess provided if is trustworthy and reliable, sans any material CAEL Sek behd.
contradiction, omission or improvement in the prosecution cass. We would also keep in mind the dictum in "Voseph 1 Steve ¢ Y Kerala" wherein the Hon'ile Supreme € ourt | has held that wh ere there 3 is @ sete eyowliness his aa lestmony should be accepted with an amount of "caution and afer testing AWK evidence on the touchstone of other materials on record.
1g, PW-2, Surendra Singh has deposed in the Court that at about VAR 200 PM he hac gone to the shop of Bigan Mahto ta fetch household arucles. While his sen and Ramdheni Si iIngh were engaged in gos siping outside the shop the accused Persons came on two motoreyeles, Dhirendra suigh and Sanjay Singh were driv 'ing the motoreycles ear rying ES lak Singh, Y RARE AAR Ma aike nw iy ok _ Sy ™t :
Mohan Singh, Daba! Singh and 8! yavar Singh. These pill HOD Ty iders on beth dyew et wera tag og aie : r So ateede, § gay ek ony, ; se Motorcycles got down and started indiscriminate & iring at bi s son, He siarted raising Audig and ran towards his house, His statement Was recorded by the police at around 08:00 PM at his house in which he "has described participation of the appellants in murder of his son, With the kind of wat 23 aS ;
v Ch eb ee So Ps a 4 ws ad fh teteed AY 007 ny et wreeee a3 a ay "4 Sa eared ory, AF ;
' ~aned ed we Sat gy 4 oo a" Roo aeheet oe poe wpe AG neg wy 5 Re nt % a w a teed a wher oa & yeard Ct wt wat : rs cat rn feed "3 pod wa eines oe oan x weed, nyeed gi: erage A ~ oa wy we me ree, need ee en gees r, a gai 43 inl veeeecee We. bet sehen ae pe when wn . 4 ni oF "pt A a vs ea a re, veg e % woe ee ah, ye wee 4 one wr that . re o> wee, 42 a we Ral ry fh est 6 tone na tp aa a5 ond oS por oe ts wn a5 on 5 ree Cs beh [aed wee as ore : a ' a dl ot mM OF S te a St $e & pas ih te CR er OD pg 43 Ay ceed No Sa. seen a aa tee ae ce 2 tee _t narod ° PS tA Ls ar = 4 Sees say mn +A oa : tn ad 3 on, ones pee nie Ce . ea ES % Se ons 2S tat r a3 re aoe, raat : :
a RS Dy : ~ oS : en . one oa 4 fleet ae a3 Seed Set a oS oon ip te te ret, mt ' Z at? Ot ~ "ey ons re, nm aF os Sone "geo 83 ~~ wt nee RS me i fone m ewe £ oe " 5 ey pet oes a Neat whoo og po ; bat ee) oh ie wn : o . ¢ : ee os o yhoo 3 om the on int aa fess "shang x speed ot a = 4s Mw 2 pek ae net Ay ane oR a &> os a3. a os on Sand xt ' - nop oc 4h me Cae on 2 tet os vant cviors ih oo we ram pen ~ a wt ped te che, qeae pony pen ha Ro a bo Apo Sd ue rt oe Oe co , ' "sy Sy "4 " Ae om CG: "a Y ny at? had : oo ad ta Co Aa Ro me vores an "ag nr LY ea ih eed co o pow menor w ¢ SS : oo ot oy "ew Be who ca a3 % gt Oe nee ; pre ree <2 i cy oe : yaw) Be re ny me cS goer ce Nat e ied B near ry st at Soom % a Og a fe r oe i we + . " < ° = 7 wee whe om --- ia ae) sot oe aa we ue vote steed beet Ne ns g pri 104 ww te, hy se ws wg aot "se -- Ae a bree ay a 7 * ana a te % OG ee oy @ woo raced a oO a] ~ = oct oS 43 'ha a) x pa C4 ad feos. cee Cf m So ot word Y Soe red w ' poland, Toot Tok} per pe sheet yew, pee fet * seed re , o % ard oe eden? red 5 ed ran' Moe ~~ "ped me pr, wy og 7 oe nd rg ms or ant ws 5 os Senet Ww . x GY ot $ eee tf Sat weed " 4 "tend Me ad fo tas, we whot weed pon oo yt Sa od ' G a $ ween, rh ptned os weees oon Pee on . on, ths ae Ly ipo nA Ok et yor a + eed wont on a3 a3 > pend Sty AL on a8 om ae > "et xy Cen, % pered, pened oe pa a bt m oe eg od om ES aS oe we 'se! Jone any a4 fed YG os tet wy z Saag aed oe o¥ ne ow a> we Ses a4 Paes ie me 4 4 ee os ne aed, ey Se reed fan ed pea free e a4 So tet wD a ' oy ne " pread, we x. oor ne mel pone, as at aw sa m . "ab tonnes yee wm a2 rey 4 nat on ¥ pee. ay . n tone wa on teat sae + poooh kg 'ae ed me ® a ne aa a3 Ment Oy y nA ~ , ne n pees ee wn : ss seoet * ad 7h. pet Fi a1 tp -- ¢ to es mw boos ae CS ore voees bea a a whe gc ce eons es we ws o eet > ¢ ine " saree toy 383 ta 4 os god aa Stet a ms w= ae, peed ee " pe 4 kt e > mm & : Bm & Qa 43 ie s wv te to Me re "wed owns rs seen os " wer Mee ae ay "se oe rad a ~, 'eye wt pee sehen qehe a3 4 nen, lew ca 4 : bed t we t ; gent cd re ot y Nad pak bas nt ee ve 'deed 63 3 gS a 2 on ee te ot y an 4 pw "2 tp fy Rpodk 5 ft, wet S bea, how oe ye eon , 4 Ag oS Gh 4 RS y freon ¢ ie , is aed wad ered gs os ge viet 'A yond rag ae red pilose ws roe et oes a3 st ove Feat 4 n my on oe te oo xn beds hs Oe ip ae aeeed, * red 3 wed o, wes ieee my epee Speed pee "2 enon pet mind rae "& Sch, ta pom fee os om os rae me ed oe "ss a7 £3 nwt Led wie ore " ne ia ws Seve « of a3 we te LG cc re > Og eye te ces prone os yen woven tpoct ow ne beet ae a ws YY aA ;
a) wis fn, nk af os Jane tae, z i ny vod oot tt seers ns a io mee ae o, Lh LS jeg eens eee a gag ven, we red volo oo shee L ; 43 e "fs eee bene Ay et iS Ft ' a ok 45 8 ae ceeews bed on Ine ae setnes, ne wee, heed
- we ve 4, "st ne t Ieee, feos fowe he o SS eee ners, 'eat wh mt "A gee tonere cad roped, Oe 4 w te yee ca x heed, od as ' a et ane aa Kg ees peek no, . a4 wy met . - dees toe pees mn es wo ae. aon, go ' eS ore os a ra te we iG 3 a foot a get , pat eonee "hee yet red * re, 'end fon ot $ ay re as ae fal <5 feew . hed Coons a pine or pon : Poet Cayad Ys on ont oe . ih wa pee sad ee) a on foot @ A : L roe nemo, no oe a 5 an a whee on :
Ax oe te nerd wee Ps eet a on eee oaeted eed tre. saad an wt oo ee retety ° os a Ys oA fas qed ney eg ve :
; pee os fA Spon oy winct ma Io : a oo oS EZ A ae " tne "3 noe oy ww ad ae on Se nd rt ty few et: peved, 4 one aie Z Pr. wes: eer re, tLe nemeend Sogn, feve oo heer waers . creek shat yee ns eee wet on oA i gS ge weet a ¢ vs is 43 we £5 on gen ae wb eth z wh :
Mh baa "a > ¢ Past feos 7 : 4 6 I pees % mee we :
Le oy 'Ld bere yond a ty : ;
eh pee Sons, wy 2 £ yuna re fen ;
"6. an Ls wt ron 4 tehes rN i Soa or . + ! vane "nat :
z de eo, . j a 4 * we *y eA we pet 2 eed ot "adn, ne poe perk LA ay eo Bore OM ea aa gee som weloes or phone io ay ms atoee men so a4 wa . (he fe & "eg weed, nped, ie tee aS a oy MD as a "ev s% AA : "us eee a up a hooe ie oe Ke ered waded, Sot wns on ae aad yn eoep, het he gen RG Sa SE - 43 sed Ld we Le ts teed ; wy a a gem wie 'al ed m howe aye : re ey Seal! n Mita st Ct 'ne me x3 vet SE ms Sb g i fob yn aes a a Lee bows setae Lp wt wat oe pened: ones we oh wt ae ree ee > . Coad z on a :
ws ~ gent fe ba ard wen poor ot one Bnen had SOE ey Oe as observed that the ev idence ot 8 vet 3 wD pat Soto, "ey, nat re ee of Pe oo eo wer beg Ch pu poe % nt fad o ~ oe pe ast g vs Ut medical witness is of an advisery character. [If is also tue that a stray + ' & page rt So} 4 = staternent of the medical witness does not impact the case which 2 ~ x founded on ocular evidence. The plea v urged on behalf of the apy ne substance and nothing turns on th of firing fror close fangs was found by PW-8. The medical evidence is in syne the vied doops teed &%% 2 ad 2 ie ne doubt that Indiser Sey Sale prasecution case and there is no doubt that indiscriminate fru appellants has caused instant death of Shyam Bibari Singh, iG. There was no doubt on identification of the apne Ly .
:
esis ro reasem fc | assailants of Shyam Bihari Sineh and th Des informant has sald that his implicated in this ease. The relation. with the appellants was cordial and the Inv: esti eating OF x a animus to falsely implicate them for commiting murder of Shy Singh, The alibi of Sanjay Singh and Mohan Singh was right! y hye the oe The agli $ Meoted dintne tha frosting my the trial Judge. The call details. collected curing the mvyestigatic established that on the date and time of the occurrence Sanjay ce Up Mohan Singh were present in the village Kbukbra and they have not set uy sere are ather corroborative materigis to sapport the informant on invelvement af the : appellants in murder of his son IS. The evidence of PW-3, PW-S and PW-6 who are : clos related fo the informant is admissible under sention Evidence Act which incorporates the doctrine of res ~y ents admissible which ether constitute circumstance with a fret in issue as to form part of action, Broadly speaking, there are three cai BS AS we hy soles ittost SBN eee, - 5 fy S admitted In evidence as res pesiae, A stateanen reasons other than the truth of what jt as A, & Statement sa closely cited with the event in time, place any d clroumstances that }f becomes ih ' ungs done. In "Feper a ROY YX rt yf > eer Re weyenel fan o part of the &S done. in "ene Lord Normand has se a0 Lae cast may be said, that it is essential that the words sought 8 be proved by hearsay should be, Wo not absolutely contemporanecus with the achan of event, at least so clearly associated with it in time, place and sircumstances, inat they are part of the thing being done and so an item or part of real evidence and not merely a reported statement"
19. PW-3 has made a statement in cxamination-in-c! hief "that in the everung of 01.01.2011] he was going to his house from Bhatly ri Tola to village Khukhara for lighting de (ny lamp) in his house and at that time he heard 5-6 rounds of fring and has seen three persons each on Evo moloroyeles going away. He has stated that Surendra & Singh told him about the cecurrence and several other persons also knew about it. PW-5 has stated that he heard sounds of firing coming from Mahato Tol ¢ and 8 shortly thereafter the Informant came running and told him that his s son has been shot dead. PW-6 has denased jn the Court that the informant came 1 PALS indie Ghat his son has been shat. They have stated that the informant told them name of the assailants. They had rushed to the place of occurrence to 3 eet fey g NAAR tf immediately and according & to them the villagers who had ga there were alse talking that the appel ants had committed murder of Shyam Bah BAAR nari Singh, The statement of PW-4 sand PA.6 the at immediately after they heard the sound of rin ig the informant came and told the my 1 that his san has been shot is s admussiole in evidence under the rule of pes gestue. The statement of PW-3 is also relevant on account fds proximity with dime apy and place of accurrence. The sta tutory illustration (a) te section 6 of the Evidence Act which incorporates a similar rule of evidence as BY unded by Lord Normand may profitably be seen in this context, fliustration fan A iy avenue wee fx} '. ro) Ca OF In if < tees Deatine Bim, Whatever we ay sed or done by 4 ar B ar the eter cdteee he rorytdsae. "Pee aye eyfkae 3 BYR GGEPS RE beating OF SO Shar ty befere or OEP PY LER fe. fora pce "f af "fle SOLACE ion, is & refevant tect Sty gM, gs, . aed? og ' re veer) PAP Bo Baawood iS chow cots ee
28. In "Stote of AY Poy Ramesh' the witness had seen the beat NP he " arr: he anaqpey :
of the father ef Ramesh by the accused persons and she runrated the imeident to him. In trial, Ramesh « deposed in the Court that Rannw Bai hac told him heey tr ;3
BPI Ris mother and her paramour have killed his father The Hon'ble Supreme Court ¢ vhile holding that om t Fa' tae a op oy a mt Foes 4 " oS) ~ a wn of) ee sy ES x sree i fs mn cy rr, heen gon a at on hobo, vertaatedintnendndcenicnnicnnteesttcee: ng a ° oe { PLE En te te he Do NE eS reBlthe cee: ile. aes Nepal we me pe "yf ~ i oo in jako :
aad ot ot we ee : gt wo 7 a ne " ow weed re fea, pid ane vend : ' Vs na pee tn. mee vee 'hon - a oe xy ir FF Ww tt pes ve 2S mo 4 nee a ne feet ty oe " & "oo ws ~~ reed tit :
r: of yt "
4 am J. Oe :
3 ab es x ee deed re ak wars xe ht oot ae ee ve i a 33 os al S ed Be aed "2 gE we P aed neon 3 Cg oS Ms aa oa ws ye lp e ret we Mp. yo fon, "3 fan heed, et we yt, o As feed ier ned £ pet wry ae el sone ne ry veo oe 2 ad 'ont ere "ed my ty roy fe} os a, git ty * Ia be ~ » a ie an, - pened, tod 4 tet a we oon we os ae : Nol ; s oe pet ae ot Repo rand ~~ " cores GA on nee ney ree _ nea c. ;
nS ree . cAOe) ges ee ween, ae x ot y Sa as 2 2 @ reg Li, oe G 4 cr ints wt Lh 2 pres ee wn, 3 Las pe te om na Soke ae ™ m ory , a re we "ed > Naw Ls, if? a a, a pes, Ae ~~ ad ; 3 45 aa a y wy recat m eed a4 i oon ay ~, we, * * an be Seat sad hep oe wet SS LS eer + Co bee aS et" a3 et wih ws s % , ee ca oe Ly oe nes $e os 1 ;
pee bed howe nae now L% ae we a oo . ae Ab o x oS ot pan 4 £5 a . $ ~~ of "e mt : fn wees en, Fe om te wn Nat ~ ween, yer wt Oo foto vr oe " % okt pt ee mn % £03 Lt o : bee a 23 " wh 4 wed i tte BD s bee as Co : oA ae i ed oy odin 2 nek: yoad feos tk om ms in he. oe 'D yhoo . t wood ee ; , "ee aan gt eet a vd " a greet ee reyes 1 1S "
rage " fennel ve Na wat oo Saat frag, * gee Peal me we thet Bs vi tet ea ms oo mS me ye a 1K yard, ney sheet "hen hs ¢ con Lf; "5 ry mq 'fect Bee gy gw yor tree ny wed he eG a me Ce "3 YG we Le oe oo ne oe AG ~ re ¥ ' ae ~ Ora dew " be os a Rg faa? a % woge % et pes 4 peek oe ES ost <4 8 ae "2 oo fy a bea a3 es . e x fg 'Nemast 4 the en eee oe seg 4 $ , oe ah ; % oe a3 ae mn et wae 4 4 '7 z aes ey Pee, "rag eg os "ag of we ge ne "eee! yee, io we a me wa Ce ms ? res oot Cha a * Seed wee iS Mahto and Santa Mahto. The evidence of the informant assailants flred at his sore he rar: towards his house raising # dae with the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 who have alse Cescribed i & similar bed manner how the informant came running and cried out that Shyam Bihari Sugh was shot. To the extent the informant speaks the sche facts, the evidence of other witnesses has coroborrative worth, :
ao, ly is mot known who brought the dead body of St vam Bihari Singh in the house and on that | ground it was contended that the prosecution has not proved the place of occurrence. PW-2, PW-3 and PW.7 nave stated that the villagers had brought the dead body of Shyam Bihar i Singh in the house. Even DW-1 has also de eposed In the Court that the villagers had brought the dead body of Shyam Bihari Singh in the hous stated that Shyam Bihari Suigh was shoi dead in front of the chop of Sarita Mahto, PW-7 has stated in h is evidence that he has sean the dead body of Shyam Bihari Singh bing at fifty feet from hus shop. From the place of occurrence empty cartridgss and blood-soaked earth were seized | sy the Investigating Officer and he has deposed in the Court about his objective findings regarding the place of scourrence. In these facts we | find that there is no deubt on the place of ocd and the prosecution has proved that Shyam Bihari Singh was fired upon near the shop of Sant Mahto and Bigan Malhto. Ip was contended that except a feeble att empt fo impute motive on the basis of a proceeding under section | iB Cr PC the prosecution has failed to produce any material to establis | what was the motive for crime. Motive can not be a decisive factor by eel and only an the basis of motive an accused cannot be convicted fhy a crime ake murder, (he prosecution may prove the charge without establishing motive on the part of tne accused and of course ance mative is also proved it further tyes oth i> KS POLE VS ey ae 2 3 ~ Strengitiens the prosecution case, but absence of motive or fallure of the prosecution fo prove motive would rot «:
based on ocular evidence.
ho oo Py at roy : 7 : et osogs ot. in "Stare of ALB oy Jeet Sime?" ¢ ey p 2 acgue fo resivsiher 3 ohh a ays sive bas ifs core
-
e won 1d ssthafity of Sonne oF Paks 23 The appellants have not put forth a plausable circumstance why they would be falsely implicated in the case, rather there is sulliciert ; 3 } ie a APTS the Par shar vt mdication about lOig-stancing arimesity and bitterness wi ith t ths family of x Surend gh. In the confi essional statement OF Sa Sin ursrdra Sing : :
: $ AXA Baw of his agnates was suspec ed. Siyavar Sieh and Sanjay village under the fear and they have established their ow Sy y st ¢ Kuruburu. There is a reference of g contract in the narne of 8 sy public distribution shop and bandobast for the pond. These j :
direotly implicate the "e appellaa its for murder of Shyam Bihari § not hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidenc Aol No part of 'the § so-called x onisssional statement of the appellants is ice patory, rathe er Siyavar Singh 4 has stated that he along with the other app slants have 5 been falaeby ~ mplicated In the case. The confessional statement was prove 2d curing the tral and the other appellants have not den} ad or retracted the statement made by Siyavar Singh. The ficts stated by Siyavar Singh in the Statement Read .
at a aw recorded by the pollee on 28.03.2011 can be looked into by he trace the history and unearth the trath lreter: Sandeep «Stare The prosecution witnesses are réluted to the deceased but ar the same Ure the appellants are alse his clase LReS pi Popgyesy . : my eRe r Mey HE agnates. Generally AY 3 motive for a criminal act is difficult to uncarth and as antly observed by the f < Lord Chief Justice Campbell who struck a note of caution in Bou Pabner {Shorthand Report at p.
May 2856} that ade: yuacy oft Masts to. Weeetarmmes fo aah is ~ é . Pitte importance in « case, what is a remarkable feature OF THis case is that the appellants have not suggested a motive for thelr filse iranlioation in pad.
y AS a raw . " Lo amd aan met he baie 4 Fy the case, There is no rule of evidence and it can net be laid dow of universal application that a father would never eis a high deeree of certainty that a father would not falsely ne the crane, murder af his son, if they were not im
28. Sanjay Singh and Dhirendra Singh motoroyeles ane the other four have fired apon Shyam ihart A avert acts clearly reflect a pre-concert and meeting of mind ts eliminate Shyam Bihari Singh. The intention of an accused can be gathered trom the manner af occurrence, role played by hun and the w ADs) acoomplish the job. A sudden fight which implies provocati fon and blows to & ae ach other if resulis in death the necessary ingredients to CONSUL offence under section 300 IPC may be found absent, but, if murder has been committed with a pre- arranged plan all Involved are equally Hable for murder in the same manner as iPat were deme by each of sy alone. "To fasten the lability upon each of such persons with the aid of section 34 IPC all that the prasecution is 'eared to establish is that the mal act was accomplished in .OFall. in "Bearwed Mepa Dane and Anr Supreme Court has observed that the principle which se embodies is participation in action whh the CCTM COMMUTING 8 crime & ad once such participation. is established 5 ¢ tonce attracted. The appellants came on two motorcycles, of them fived indiscriminately at Shyam Bihari Singh whi! rs DOlerendra Singh had kept ready the maior 'eyecles for swit and fast eseane, They came together and after the firing have fled away er Saniay BoA Singh and Ohirendra Singh have not fired any shot at Shy an Bih ian Singh commman intention with other Soar and ¢ commuted in furtherance of their common intention. Any. dit rect evidence on criminal conspiracy is hard to find and quite offen the Co wt has to base MS HeCision on circumstantial evidence. A conspiracy was hatched by the Sy a appellants can be inferred from the circumstance that Shyam Bibar Singh AMR oryrtpiysterart dag a sssali ota PE < t Kes was murdered In a well executed plan. There is no doubt that they are > for oerimgsal eesscivases apel oo go) oe ow far crumimal censpiracy and murder of Shyara reps spon' 4 rn apeeer ears a rd fr, nereds 234 * ee et Se Oo mn om on BS me mn o 4 3 ws ne of MINCE & conviction of oy 't Xu 3 AX STAR VA ARY 1 phi:
3 we ; oe Lt Bp oe oi . ro a ; ee 4 ond Be we ees ; at noee a $ n ot : ae mt oh "chee a ' Ae .
we we wept hy wr, om en a ay Nat ee Newt pet ae ved tht sere feb 4 . a3 prked oe ae ee EL ae ay pe Oh ome 4 " r oe 4 eL2 - os be i Er ae :
gs i wo, e? %y * vane con .
poeed, tft re, f % st Lt tea squat rat a oo <m re nnn ad es 4 ' 3 ts Bans re bet eweand" om , oP oo * Ouk see Lr; eee Se wt A's wy ws " ry, a ped n wer .
eta voved CAs oe 5 Lrg "
soo weer ted sence "CH Te ond ered od Nat os : . M fone, . o A ne, 6, £ = ne, oO et ae we a a3 af ond - * tated oared "ad ee of 4 boot pets OR ve St won pond ny _ sey ia me re * oan "ah nye mS inthe ~ freee cy c6aC7 " nn ee 3 wy m4 tee foi ry if one os Rey we a 2 fis, mh COO at oS , cn tt mp xD ¢ C38, SS hes ee meee, re ot ra ~ wee on "TF ad tA . went ed wr yn. Sor, ~~, ; ry 25 few chant pba Co ' cones xs es BA on a "3 CO a eG vee fee x os ae Oa - os aes CO;
ot aeons ot on bent feee '3 get pons ak eee 2S weed. mm 5 ST net dee, tet ot ee Ay en $8 on she i ae nee Le eed wee he a Ce on Setoot on we mee Saad o ms Ko z " ; ' a ~ ot os, rhe ped a3 ne wi ong i fees Sef we wy " ee we ee, ' 43 roy wey nae we n5 ra - : t. "e mw ed an «, ae * oad CN on Goo os wc the . Ss ot oa a 4 we ~~ a: . os am tee ~ eo i Ae SS 4 sane Sve ae os ra Saad as CE es ra es vf oye vy bee = ees "ed bode ~ ne a whe > HS. oe Pete a4 we yo ; 4 OG oa Re moe on eed eet 'oat ' n ; ¢ Caran wm ' < qves hawt Le ae) peed oe,, es 4 Sooke iP oS 'o0%, * fy = ony . paeed vr, " %3 oy, get ¥ me 7 Grae we roy eh 'eer? wt 2 af pnd, none « n oe, een ; od ; os .
"~ 2 . os Cg ven voter ey uF CR ws 196 e , ww ee Lf 4 a en oe an a nw ea we, Bes LD a os x Z £3 pon " see gee Cyd soon aS ook oo reed, a. wines Ce ' ea re See" row, " the ew Ck nr . eet phew Sos ry rieek ms % a3 x hu ped ol paces a 4 mm ws 'd "s ny er eres "3 ag viet ones pee Soe % a ae cane r jot tae gore on AS al AY i he oe reeed, of; vege, wos "od gene ons 4 ft "3 mm bo (& me ae Ne Af sages * uf ee a week een ' ele " on : : : <3 wot nh Wee 3 et a fs is fo. re teood ot inenat 4 ; me Sh raed ape? fess a Qn 4 Po, er re pees ete ny mS wy ' segs 4 : hd 'Sd wt} ae * we lod 4
05 woos £3 beg pee "3 S00 oe " 5 " ey : "5 '3 ame "Ls yy need ms ve ay 43 whoy A oft - e045 1h v7 peas 2, se pons we Pa feats . we a4, fees Me a ope wre on $ ne a A £ ay / ne new he . pa OS} aS pa bea we ee nm "5 ore ot torr ae wD < Ra kaw on , f , watery zB os cor ae me ops gee Le eens ne Lp peneee 'Sear oe ae at bes os os gee om a a a ™ Eo wo Bw» pogo ang oe ~ a ren fot ee? Saba? wy ay, 23 Nae? ae 'amet we ny oh, ey eeeed eee 4 ye. ee ttn, . ft ra re. at preg, fobed Lg poe eee awd red ioe woe? wt L5 tb ory 'dees Neon