Patna High Court - Orders
Parshuram Pandey vs The State Of Bihar on 1 June, 2016
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Anjana Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No 118 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -362 Year- 2001 Thana -CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- -
======================================================
Parshuram Pandey S/O Late Dharnidhar Pandey Resident Of Village-
Paterha, P.S- Khaira, Distt- Saran At Chhapra.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
For the Appellant/s : M/s Ajay Kumar Thakur, Md Imteyaz Ahmad &
Malay Kumar Choudhary, Advocates
For the Respondent/s: Mr A K Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
And
HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT ANJANA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)
3 01-06-2016IA No 1111 of 2016 has been filed for bail on behalf of the sole appellant.
Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Thakur and Shri A K Sinha, learned APP for the State.
The appellant has been convicted, inter alia, under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for allegedly killing the son of the informant. Our attention is drawn to paragraph 16 of the judgment and the records to show that it is PW 5, who was Officer-in-charge of Bhagwanpur Police Station (PS) who recorded the Fardbayan at the Hospital. The sequence of event is that the shoot out had taken place under Khaira PS in a shop. Khaira PS police arrived there immediately and took the deceased and the informant being his father in police vehicle from the place Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.118 of 2013 (3) dt.01-06-2016 2/2 of occurrence to Bhagwanpur Hospital. The informant was all along there and he, in his deposition, has said that he disclosed the entire event to PW 6. This is not brought on record. The Fardbayan is recorded by PW 5 only after the doctor declared the injured dead on arrive. PW 6, in the meantime, left without recording any statement. Further, PW 6, the Investigating Officer, accepts that when he went to the shop premises, he did not find any blood-stained there and it is on the next day that an empty shell was recovered from near the shop premises. It is submitted that if these things are taken note of, then it would throw suspicion on the entire prosecution story. These discrepancies remain unexplained. The trial Judge wrongly noted that the Fardbayan was recorded by PW 6 whereas it was recorded by PW 5, as noted by the trial Court also in paragraph 16.
Be that as it may, the appellant abovenamed, during pendency of the appeal, shall be released on bail on his furnishing bonds of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge V, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No 645 of 2006.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)
M.E.H./- (Anjana Mishra, J)
U