Patna High Court
Vinay Singh vs State Of Bihar on 30 July, 2012
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.382 of 1998
---------
Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.9.1998
passed by Shri Rana Abhai Singh, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, in
Sessions Trial No.66 of 1996/36 of 1996/67 of 1995 (G.R. No.1075 of 1994)
arising out of Wazirganj P.S. Case No.90 of 1994.
===========================================================
Vinay Singh son of Raja Ram Singh, resident of village-Karjara, P.S.-Wazirganj in
the district of Gaya
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shoeb Alam with
Mr. Ziaul Hoda
For the Respondent/s :Mr.S.N.Prasad, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 30-07-2012
1. By a judgment and order pronounced on 16th
September, 1998 in Sessions Trial No.66 of 1996/36 of 1996/67 of 1995
(G.R. Case No.1075 of 1994) arising out of Wazirganj P.S.Case No.90 of
1994, the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya found the appellant,
Vinay Singh, guilty under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code
and section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ten years under section 304 Part II of the Indian
Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 27 of
the Arms Act. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run
concurrently.
2. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal
2 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998
2.
against the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the
trial court. It would be relevant to note it here that the appellant was
charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder of one
Dinesh Pandey and was further charged under section 27 of the Arms Act
for being found in possession of a licensee gun and using the same for
unlawful purpose. However, the trial court on appreciation of evidence
found that the offence was not of culpable homicide amounting to murder
and, thus, the conviction of the appellant was altered to one under section
304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is based on the oral statement
of P.W.1, Sita Ram Tiwary, recorded by a Sub Inspector of Police-cum-
Officer-in-Charge of Wazirganj Polce Station, namely, Ashok Kumar
Singh (P.W.7) on 22.5.1994 at about 5.15 p.m. near the house of Nathun
Pasi of village- Karjara, P.S.-Wazirganj District-Gaya. It has been stated
in the fardbeyan that the informant has a grocery shop in his village. The
appellant, Vinay Singh, came to his shop at 2.30 p.m. on 22.5.1994 and
demanded one packet of cigarette, whereupon, the informant told that he
already owed a sum of Rs.20/- to him from before and so he would not
supply cigarette on credit. The appellant, thereafter, asked the informant to
accompany him to the shop of Gainu Pasi where he promised to make
payment after taking change from him and the informant accompanied the
appellant. It has further been stated that when the appellant came to the
3 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998
3.
shop of Gainu Pasi with the informant, he went inside the house of Gainu
Pasi and brought his licensee single barrel gun and aimed towards the
informant. The appellant started hurling abuses. In the meantime, the
deceased Dinesh Pandey chanced to come there and he asked the appellant
not to vex the poor informant and pay his previous dues, otherwise, he
would not give cigarette on credit. This infuriated the appellant and he
fired one shot from his single barrel gun which hit the right hand of
Dinesh Pandey and immediately thereafter he fired another shot which hit
him on the chest and the deceased dropped down. It has further been
stated in the fardbeyan that the appellant chased the informant up to his
house but the informant escaped into his house and bolted the door from
inside and somehow he could manage to save his life. It is stated that the
occurrence was witnessed by co-villagers Ranjay Kumar Singh (P.W.3),
Ram Kumar Singh (P.W.5) and Shatrughan Singh (not examined). It has
also been stated in the fardbeyan that the contents of oral statement were
read over to him and finding the same to be true and correct he put his
signature over it. The fardbeyan has been brought on record and marked as
Ext.5.
4. As stated above, the oral statement was recorded at
5.15 p.m, in the village of the occurrence and the same reached to the
police station on the same day at 10.00 p.m. when Wazirganj P.S.Case No.
90 of 1994 dated 22.05.1994 was registered for the offence punishable
4 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998
4.
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act and the Officer-in-charge of the police station who had recorded the
oral statement of the informant himself took up the investigation. The
formal first information report has been brought on record and marked as
Ext.4.
5. It appears from the record that after recording the
fardbeyan the Officer-in-charge of the police station prepared the inquest
report of the deceased on the same day at 5.45 p.m. From perusal of the
inquest report, it appears that the dead body of the deceased was found
adjacent east to the house of Nathun Chaudhary son of Kishun Chaudhary
of the P.O. village. It would be pertinent to note it here that on the top of
the inquest report police station case number and date of the offence in
which the case has been registered are mentioned. The inquest report has
been brought on record and marked as Ext.7 by the prosecution in course
of trial. Ram Nandan Singh son of Deo Sharan Singh and Sheo Bachan
Singh son of Late Rajnath Singh both of the P.O. village have testified the
inquest report and put their signature over it. In the inquest report column
6 which is meant to be noted for the circumstance which creates any
suspicion regarding commission of the offence has been left blank.
6. The dead body of the deceased, Dinesh Pandey,
was, thereafter, sent for post mortem examination to the Magadh Medical
College & Hospital, Gaya where it was received at 11.00 a.m. on
5 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998
5.
23.05.1994. The post mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased at 12.45 p.m. on 23.05.1994. Dr.Kapildeo Prasad (P.W.2) who conducted the postmortem examination found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:
(1)Penetrating wound of size 2 ½"x 2" on left side of the chest situated 2" above and medial to the left nipple. The margins of the wound were inverted, irregular and blackened. On dissection left 3rd and 5th ribs were found broken. Left lung was found lacerated. Pillets and wad were found embeded in the tissues of the left lung which is recovered. Bloods and clots were found in the thoracic cavity.
Recovered pillets and wad were properly sealed and handed over to the constable with report.
(2)Lacerated wound of size 2 ½"x 3"x muscle deep was found over lateral aspect of the upper part of the right forearm. The margins of the wound were irregular and inverted at the lateral aspect and inverted and irregular at the medial aspect of the forearm (the missile passed form right to left side by touching the upper part of the right forearm). Bloods and clots were found over the wound.
The post mortem report shows that the above mentioned injuries were ante mortem injuries and grievous in nature. Both the injuries were produced by fire arm. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage mainly due to injury no.1. The time 6 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 6. elapsed since death was within 20-24 hours from the time of the post mortem examination. The post mortem report has been brought on record and marked as Ext.2. It would further appear from the post mortem report that the dead body was brought by constable Mahendra Singh and clothes and articles sent with the corpse were also handed over to him. It further appears from the record that on 22.05.1994 itself at about 6.45 p.m., the officer-in-charge of the police station seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and prepared a seizure list in that regard which has been brought on record and marked as Ext.3. The witness to the inquest report, Ram Nandan Singh son of Deo Sharan Singh, is also a witness to the seizure list prepared by the police. Apart from Ram Nandan Singh, Birnedra Singh son of Ramraj Singh of the P.O. Village has also been made a witness to the seizure list. On the top of the seizure list, it is found that police station case number, date and offence under which the case has been registered are mentioned thereon.
7. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, supplied police papers to the appellant in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and committed the case to the court of sessions for trial where charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act were framed against the appellant. The appellant did not plead guilty to the 7 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 7. charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in order to prove its case. The appellant has also examined two defence witnesses in order to prove his innocence in the case.
8. P.W.1, Sita Ram Tiwary, is informant of the case.
P.W.2 is Dr. Kapildeo Prasad, who held postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and proved post mortem report in course of trial which has been marked as Ext.2. P.W.3, Ranjay Kuamr Singh, is another material witness who claims to be present at the place of occurrence. P.W.4, Arun Singh, a co-villager of the appellant and the informant has been declared hostile. P.W.5, Ram Kumar Singh, is father of P.W.3, Ranjay Kumar Singh. He also claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.6, Ashok Kumar Sinha, is the second Investigating Officer of the case who subsequently took charge of the investigation. He has proved the seizure list marked as Ext.3, formal F.I.R. marked as Ext.4, Fardbeyan marked as Ext.5 and the case diary from paragraph 1 to 51 marked as Ext. 6. P.W.7, Ashok Kumar Singh, as noted above, is the first Investigating Officer in the instant case. He has proved the inquest report Ext.7. P.W.8 is Birendra Singh, a seizure list witness, who has simply proved the signature on the seizure list marked as Ext.1/1.
9. P.W.1, Sita Ram Tiwary, while deposing in court has corroborated his fardbeyan. He has further tried to clarify some 8 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 8. ambiguity of the first information report. He states that the appellant told him that he has currency note of Rs.100/-. Since P.W.1 was not having change, the appellant told him to accompany to the shop of Gainu Pasi so that his due amount may be cleared. He states in his examination-in-chief that the appellant chased him up to his house and when he closed the door from inside, he dared him to come out. He hurled abuses and knocked the door from outside. He further states that when his mother came, he told her about the incident and the fact that Dinesh Pandey has been killed and, thereafter, he fainted. He further states that his mother went to the police station and, thereafter, the police came and his statement was recorded which was read over to him and finding the contents to be true and correct he put his signature. In cross-examination, P.W.1 states that on the date of occurrence Gainu Pasi was selling toddy. He further states that the deceased was a co-villager and a truck driver. He admits that he never informed the family members of the deceased regarding the occurrence. He further admits that when he went to the house of Gainu Pasi together with the appellant 10-15 persons were present there. Out of 10-15 persons some were his co-villagers, whereas, some others belonged to the neighbouring villages. He further states that he does not know as to whether the weapon used in the offence was a licensee gun or a country made gun. He further states that an altercation took place between him and the appellant for about five minutes but out of 10-15 persons present there, 9 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 9. no one intervened. He states that though the appellant who was armed with gun, targeted him but he did not try to escape. In the meantime, the deceased came and intervened. He tried to persuade and pacify the appellant for 10-15 minutes. He further states in cross-examination that the appellant fired from a close range. On sustaining first gun shot the deceased did not fall. Neither the informant nor the deceased tried to escape after the appellant fired first shot. Thereafter, the appellant took out the empty cartridge, re-loaded his gun and fired second shot which hit the deceased in his chest. He admits that the duration of time intervening between the first shot and the second shot, was of about five minutes. But, in the meantime, neither the deceased nor the informant tried to escape or to snatch the gun in question. He states that the deceased dropped down after sustaining second gun shot. He denies the suggestion that both he and the deceased were drunkards and they were taking toddy at the shop of Gainu Pasi when scuffle took place between the deceased and some other unknown persons and in that process the deceased was shot dead by some unknown miscreants. He also denied the suggestion that the appellant was not present at the relevant date near the place of occurrence but a false accusation has been made against him.
10. P.W.3, Ranjay Kumar Singh, is also a co-villager of the appellant. He states in examination-in-chief that on 22.05.1994 at about 2-3 p.m. he was present at the door of Nathun Chaudhary. He saw 10 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 10. altercation taking place between the deceased and the appellant. He states that the appellant who was armed with gun fired two shots. The first shot hit the deceased on his right arm whereas the second shot hit him in the chest as a result of which Dinesh Pandey died. He further states that the informant Sita Ram Tiwary ran towards his house and the appellant chased him up to his house, abused him and dared him to come out. In cross-examination he admits that Pradeep is his brother, Upendra Singh of village Naudiha is his cousin brother and Manoj Singh son of Gajendra Singh is his co-villager. In a specific question put to him, he expresses his ignorance about any case lodged by one Vijay Kumar Singh, brother of the appellant, against his brother Pradeep, cousin brother Upendra Singh and Manoj Singh. He denies the suggestion that he is trying to hide the truth in that regard. He further admits that fardbeyan was taken on 22.05.1994 at the door of Nathun Chaudhay by the Police Officer. He admits that there are 30 houses in between his house and the house of Nathun Chaudhary. He states in cross-examination that when he reached near the house of Nathun Chaudhary, there was none present except his father and one Satrughan Singh. He states that if P.W.1 Sita Ram Tiwary, has stated that there were several other persons of neighbouring villages, he is making a false statement. He states that he does not know as to why his father had gone there but when he went there he found his father and Satrughan Singh present there. He states that first firing was made 11 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 11. immediately after he reached at the place of occurrence. According to him, the deceased Dinesh Pandey fell on the ground after sustaining the first injury and was restless. He states that at that time he was at a distance of 10 paces from the appellant. The appellant fired the second shot from the same place where he was standing. He states that at the relevant time, the deceased was wearing green Kurta and Lungi. He further clarifies in his cross-examination that one pace is equivalent to two feet. He states that after first firing was made, no one moved from his place. According to him, when the appellant fired the shot, P.W.1 Sita Ram Tiwary was at a distance of 5 paces from the deceased. He categorically states that the gun used in the offence was a country made gun. He clearly states that at the place of occurrence neither Gainu Pasi nor any of his family member was present. He further states that when the appellant chased the informant, Sita Ram Tiwary, he himself, his father and Shatrughan Singh followed them upto the house of the informant and from there he went to his house. He also admits that he did not inform the wife of the deceased. He further admits that he did not inform the police. He admits that he told the police officer in his statement that at the time of occurrence he was at the house of Nathuni Chaudhary and at that time the appellant and the deceased were altercating. He denies the suggestion that due to enmity existing from before he and his family members implicated the appellant in the present case.
12 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 12.
11. P.W.5, Ram Kumar Singh, father of P.W.3 Ranjay Kumar Singh, in his deposition states that on the date and time of occurrence he had gone to take money from Gainu Pasi. He states that he saw there that the appellant and the deceased were altercating. The appellant fired twice from his gun. The first shot hit the deceased on his left elbow and the second shot hit him in the chest and thereafter he died then and there. He states that the informant, Sita Ram Tiwary, ran towards his house. He saw the appellant chasing him. He further states that he came to his house from the place of occurrence. In cross-examination he admits that when the occurrence took place six persons were present at the house of Gainu Pasi. At that time toddy was not being sold at the house of Gainu Pasi. He further admits in cross-examination that he is not engaged in money lending business. He had gone to the house of Gainu Pasi to take back Rs.200/- which he had earlier given to him. On question being put, he admits that he does not re-collect the date on which he gave money to Gainu Pasi. He also admits that prior to the occurrence, the brother of the appellant namely, Vijay Singh, had instituted a case against his son Pradeep, nephew Manoj Singh and relative Upendra Singh. He states that in between his house and Gainu's house there are nearly 40 houses. He had proceeded alone from his residence to the house of Gainu Pasi but 10 minutes after his arrival, his son Ranjay also reached there. He states that the appellant fired both shots upon the deceased from a distance of 20 feet. 13 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 13. He states that after being hit by the first shot the deceased did not drop on the ground. He further states that the gun by which the appellant fired was a licensee gun. He categorically states that neither the appellant nor the deceased moved from their position while the alleged firing took place. He further states in his cross-examination that at the time of occurrence, Gainu Pasi was not at his residence but his wife was present there. When the firing was made Gainu's wife came out. He further states that when the informant, Sita Ram Tiwary, was being chased he was 20 feet ahead of the appellant. However, he did not follow them. He also admits that his son P.W.3, Ranjay Kumar Singh, also stayed with him at the place of occurrence and, thereafter, both of them went to their house. He also denies the suggestion that some unknown persons killed Dinesh Pandey in order to take revenge due to enmity existing from before and the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case.
12. As noted above, P.W.4 Arun Singh has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
13. P.W.8, Birendra Singh, is a formal witness who has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Ext. 1/1. In cross-examination he states that by the time he reached at the place of occurrence there were 50 persons already present from before.
14. As noted above, P.W.2 Dr.Kapildeo Prasad, 14 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 14. conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 23.05.1994 at 12.45 p.m. in Magadh Medical College & Hospital, Gaya. The injuries found by him on the person of the deceased have already been discussed hereinabove. In cross-examination he categorically states that in his opinion, the distance between the assailant and the victim would have been maximum 3 to 4 feet. He further admits that if the victim would be standing cross handed then the same shot can cause both the injuries. He further admits that author of both the injuries were different person. He also admits that the pellets that he recovered from the dead body were not before him.
15. P.W.7, Ashok Kumar Singh, is the first Investigating officer of the case. It is he who had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, instituted the first information report and took up the investigation himself. He states that on 22.05.1994 he was the Officer-in- charge of Wazirganj Police station. He came to know through rumour that the deceased Dinesh Pandey was killed by Vinay Sjngh in village Karjara. On getting such information he proceeded from the police station and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Sita Ram Tiwary. He proves the fardbeyan in his writing which had already been marked as Ext.5. On the basis of the said fardbeyan a formal first information report was drawn by him, which had also been proved earlier and marked as Ext.4. He inspected the place of occurrence. He states that the dead body of the 15 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 15. deceased was found at the Sahan in front of the house of Nathun Pasi. At that place blood was found scattered in huge quantity. He has narrated about the boundary of the place where the dead body of the deceased was found. According to him, adjacent west to the place the residential house of Nathun Pasi facing east was situated, In the south there was a lane and by the side of the lane open land of Naresh Singh was situated on which Mangar Chaudhary had his residential house. In the east there is land and house of Rajdeo Mahto. He prepared the inquest report and proved the carbon copy of the same which has been marked as Ext.7. He seized blood stained earth and prepared seizure list which had already been marked as Ext.3. He recorded the statement of the witnesses, received post mortem report and handed over the charge of investigation to Inspector Ashok Kumar Sinha on 05.07.1994. In cross-examination, he admits that he did not send the seized blood stained soil for test and the same was kept in Malkhana under charge of Sub-Inspector of Police Raghunandan Prasad. He admits that he has not mentioned in the case diary regarding the house or toddy shop of Gainu Pasi being situated near the place of occurrence. He further admits that he does not recollect as to who informed him about the occurrence but he states that in the police station itself he had come to know about the name of the assailant and the deceased. He further admits that he has not mentioned in the case diary as to whether any Sanha entry on receipt of such information was made or not. He also admits that he 16 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 16. made no attempt to verify the identity of the deceased. He neither went to the house of deceased nor tried to locate it. He further admits that he did not seize the gun used in the crime. He clearly states that P.W.3 Ranjay Kumar Singh in his statement made under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. did not state that at the time of occurrence he was at the house of Nathun Chaudhary. According to him, he had also not stated that he saw the appellant and the deceased altercating. He further admits that P.W.5 Ram Kumar Singh, in his statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. did not state that he had gone to the house of Gainu Pasi in order to demand the money given to him. He also admits that he made no effort to know as to whether the witnesses and the appellant are inimically disposed of.
16. P.W.6, Ashok Kumar Sinha, is the subsequent investigating officer, who took charge of investigation from P.W.7 on 7.7.1994. He states that after taking up the investigation, he had submitted an application before the District Magistrate for cancellation of arms licence of the appellant. He recorded the statement of Gainu Pasi in course of investigation and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet in the case. As a matter of fact, it is he who proved the seizure list (Ext.3), the formal first information report (Ext.4) and the fardbeyan (Ext.5). He has also proved paragraph 1 to 51 of the case diary which has been marked as Ext.6 during trial. In cross-examination he admits that he had neither inspected the place of occurrence nor made seizure of any material 17 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 17. exhibit. He also admits that the earlier investigating officer had not handed over to him any material exhibit. He further admits that he had not recorded the statement of P.W.1, Sita Ram Tiwary, P.W.3, Ranjay Kumar Singh, or P.W.5, Ram Kumar Singh during investigation.
17. As noted above, on behalf of defence, two witnesses were examined. D.W.1, Pratibha Karan Singh, is a formal witness, who has brought on record an informatory petition filed by the brother of the appellant, Vijay Singh, in the court of Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Gaya, in which allegations have been made against P.W.5, Raj Kumar Singh, his son Pradeep Singh, Nephew Manoj Singh and relative Upendra Singh which has been marked as Ext.A. D.W.2, Raja Ram Singh is the father of the appellant who has deposed that Gainu Pasi and Vijay Singh filed an affidavit in the case in which they have stated that the deceased was killed by some unknown person while he was taking toddy. In the affidavit it has been stated that the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence. D.W.2 has also stated that Gainu Pasi was ready to depose before the court but under the threat of P.W.5 Ram Kumar Singh, he was not coming before the court. He further states that his son is in Army and has been implicated in a false case as his another son Vijay Singh had instituted a criminal case against P.W.5 Ram Kumar Singh and his family members.
18. I have heard Mr.Shoeb Alam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.N.Prasad, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of 18 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 18. the State and with their assistance gone through the deposition of witnesses recorded in course of trial. I find several inconsistencies in the prosecution case. In the first information report the informant alleges that the firing was made by the appellant upon the deceased by a single barrel licensee gun but while deposing in court he states that he cannot say as to whether it was a country made gun or a licensee gun. P.W.3 Ranjay Kumar Singh while deposing in court is categorical in saying that the gun in question was a single barrel country made gun but his father P.W.5 Ram Kumar Singh while deposing in court states that the gun in question was a single barrel licensee gun of the appellant.
19. I further find from the depositions that in the first information report as well as while deposing in court P.W.1 states that the deceased Dinesh Pandey dropped down after receiving the second gun shot injury. However, P.W.3 Ranjay Kumar Singh, in his deposition states that the victim fell down and became restless after receiving first gun shot. According to him, the second shot was fired at him while he was lying on the ground.
20. Another important discrepancy which I notice in the deposition of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution is that P.W.1 clearly states that the appellant fired at the deceased from a close range whereas P.W.3 Ranjay Kumar Singh and P.W. 5 Ram Kumar Singh state that both the shots were fired at the deceased from a distance of 20 19 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 19. feet. The doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination upon the deceased, has clearly admitted in the cross-examination that in his opinion the distance between the assailant and the deceased would maximum be 3 to 4 feet. It is relevant to note that the injury found on the person of the deceased bore blackening mark. As per the medical jurisprudence blackening is possible only if firing is made from a close range. Thus, if the medical report is to be believed, the ocular testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.5 cannot be relied upon.
21. I further notice that P.W.3, Ranjay Kumar Singh, in his deposition states that after killing the deceased, the informant was chased by the appellant. He states that he, his father (P.W.5) and one Shatrughan Singh followed the appellant up to the house of the informant but P.W.5, Ram Kumar Singh, while being examined in court, states that when the appellant chased the informant, neither he nor his son followed him. They stayed at the place of occurrence and from the place of occurrence itself they went to their house.
22. I further find from the evidence that P.W.1, Sita Ram Tiwary, in his deposition states that Gainu Pasi was selling toddy and was present in his house. He further states that at that time 10-15 persons were present there. Some of those persons were co-villagers whereas others were of neighbouring villages. However, when P.W.3, Ranjay Kumar Singh, was examined in court he states that when he reached near 20 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 20. the house of Nathun Chaudhary there was none except his father and Satrughan Singh. He categorically states that P.W.1 is making false statement if he is saying that some other persons of neighbouring villages were also present there. Interestingly, P.W.5 Ram Kumar Singh in his deposition speaks something different from both P.W.1 and P.W.3. He states that when he reached near the house of Gainu Pasi altogether six persons were present there. According to him, Gainu Pasi was not in his house but his wife was present there. He further states that at that time toddy was not being sold in the house of Gainu Pasi.
23. I further find that P.W.3, Ranjay Kumar Singh, states in his deposition that he had gone to the house of Nathun Chaudhary which is near Gainu's house on the relevant date and time of occurrence. However, when P.W.7 was examined in court he clearly states that in his statement made before the police P.W.3 had not stated that he had gone to the house of Nathun Chaudhary. P.W.7 also states that he had not stated that when he reached at the house of Nathun Chaudhary he saw the appellant altercating with the deceased. I further find that P.W.5 Ram Kumar Singh in his deposition states that he went to recover Rs.200/- from Gainu Pasi which he owed to him. However, P.W.7 in his deposition admits that P.W.5 had not stated before him that he went to the house of Gainu Pasi to collect the amount earlier given to him. I further find that P.W.3 in his deposition tried to conceal the fact regarding enmity existing 21 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 21. from before between his family members and the family members of the appellant but P.W.5 could not deny this fact. Thus the evidence has to be appreciated in the background of the fact that both P.W.3 and P.W.5 being chance witnesses are not only inimical to the appellant but they are in the category of interested witnesses too. Admittedly, the appellant's brother had instituted a case in which one of the son of P.W.5 namely, Pradeep Singh, his nephew namely, Manoj Singh and another relative namely, Upendra Singh are accused. Thus, their evidence has to be scrutinized and appreciated with great care and caution.
24. Admittedly the house of P.W.3 and P.W.5 is situated at a reasonable distance from the place of occurrence. It is too much of a co-incidence that both of them went to the place of occurrence one after another and occasioned to see the crime. It is true that the evidence of a chance witness is not necessarily false and cannot be whittled down unless it is otherwise assailable. However, for the reasons assigned, hereinabove, it is unsafe to rely upon the testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.5.
25. Now, I would like to comment upon the manner in which the investigation has been conducted in the case. The informant states in his fardbeyan that after the occurrence he was chased by the appellant. He locked himself inside his house, revealed about the factum of murder of Dinesh Pandey to his mother and fainted. His mother went to the police station and informed the police about the occurrence but when 22 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 22. P.W.7 deposed in court he states that he received information regarding the murder of the deceased Dinesh Pandey committed by the appellant Vinay Singh at village Karjara in the police station itself. However, he did not recollect as to who informed him about the said incident. He also admits that there is nothing in the case diary to suggest that any Sanha entry was made by him in this regard. Thus, what emerges from the above discussion is that a report regarding commission of a cognizable offence reached to the police station even before P.W.7 left the police station but neither any Station Diary Entry was made nor F.I.R. was registered.
26. I further find from the record that there is an apparent over writing over police station case number mentioned at the top of the inquest report. On a cursory glance, it appears that earlier the same was written as Wazirganj P.S.Case No.89 of 1994 but by over writing it has been changed as Wazirganj P.S. Case No.90 of 1994. This gives a reason to doubt about the veracity of the first information report itself. Firstly, because if the police has registered the first information report and proceeded for investigation of the case there would be no discrepancy if the case number is mentioned over the inquest report but, in case, where the inquest report was prepared prior to institution of the case, the police officer preparing inquest report could not have given case number over it. Admittedly, the inquest report has been prepared at 17.45 on 22.05.1994 whereas formal F.I.R. was drawn at 10.00 p.m. on 22.05.1994. In my 23 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 23. view, if upon receipt of the definite information with respect to a serious cognizable offence like murder, the Investigating Officer or the Officer-in- charge of the Police station does not record the F.I.R., proceeds to the spot and after consultation, due deliberation and discussion records fardbeyan, it cannot be treated as F.I.R. in the case. It would be a statement received in course of investigation of the case. The manner in which the F.I.R. has been registered in the present case, an inference can be drawn that the same has been drawn after due deliberation, consultation and discussion.
27. I further find that P.W.7 states that he seized blood stained soil at the place of occurrence and prepared seizure list. Admittedly, the blood stained soil was never sent for chemical examination. The material exhibit has also not been produced in court in course of trial. He states that he deposited material exhibit in Malkhana but the Malkhana Incharge has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution in trial. P.W.6 who was handed over the subsequent investigation states that he never received the charge of seized material exhibit. Thus, the very existence of material exhibit vanishes. The witnesses to the inquest report namely, Ram Nandan Singh and Sheo Bachan Singh have not been examined by the prosecution in trial. There is no explanation, whatsoever, for their non-examination. The investigation has been carried out in a casual manner, would, further be apparent from the fact that the Investigating Officer admits in cross-examination that he 24 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 24. made no effort to verify the identity of the deceased. He admits that he did not make any enquiry from the family members of the deceased. To top it all, no effort was made by the first Investigating Officer to examine Gainu Pasi in whose house the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place. In the result, the entire investigation seems to be perfunctory, casual and misdirected.
28. In the present case, important witnesses like mother of the informant, who allegedly as per P.W.1, went first to police station to inform regarding the occurrence. Gainu Pasi in whose house the alleged occurrence took place, Gainu's wife who is alleged to be present in the house and Shatrughan Singh, witness to the F.I.R. have been withheld by the prosecution. There is no explanation, whatsoever, by the prosecution for their non-examination in court. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the court would certainly draw an adverse inference against the prosecution for their non-examination in the court.
29. I further find that the prosecution has failed even to prove the place of occurrence. As per the prosecution case and as per the informant, P.W.1, the victim was shot dead at the house of Gainu Pasi but the inquest report shows that his dead body was found in front of the house of Nathun Chaudhary. The Investigating Officer, while deposing in court, has narrated the boundary of the place where the dead body was found. In the boundary given by him, there is no mention about the house 25 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 25. of Gainu Pasi. The trial court while convicting the appellant has taken into account the fact that father's name of Gainu Pasi is Mangar Chaudhary and in the boundary given by the Investigating officer there is description of the house of Mangar Chaudhary but when I look to paragraph 1 of the deposition of P.W.7, Ashok Kumar Singh, I find that the house of Mangar Chaudhary has been shown to be far away from the place where the dead body of the deceased was found. It has been described that in the south there is a lane and by the side of the lane there is land of Narersh Singh over which house of Mangar Chaudhary is situated. There is nothing on the record on the basis of which it can be said or presumed that Gainu Pasi was living in the house of Mangar Chaudhary. To the contrary, P.W.7, Ashok Kumar Singh, in paragraph-6 admits that there is no mention in the case diary regarding the house or toddy shop of Gainu Pasi to be situated in any side of the place of occurrence. Thus, I find that the prosecution could not even establish the place of occurrence in the present case.
30. The appellant has been examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In his statement he pleaded his innocence and stated that on the date of occurrence he was not present in the village. He has further stated that he is a poor man. His father and uncle used to work in the house of P.W.5 (Ram Kumar Singh). When he was appointed in the army he financially supported his family. Thereafter, his father and uncle stopped working for P.W.5. He, subsequently, constructed a two room's 26 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 26. house in the village but P.W.5 set his house on fire and, thereafter, got him implicated falsely in the present case.
31. Thus, in totality of the circumstances, I find that the initial information given to the police regarding commission of a cognizable offence has deliberately been withheld. The mother of the informant, who went to the police station first to inform about the incident, has not been examined. There is an apparent over writing in writing the case number over the inquest report. The witnesses to the inquest have not been examined. The witnesses to the place of occurrence have also not been examined. The place of occurrence has not been established. The manner of occurrence has also not been established. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have contradicted each other in material particulars. The independent witnesses have also not been examined. Apart from the informant, the two other chance witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution on the point of occurrence are admittedly inimical to the appellant. The medical report does not corroborate the ocular testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The weapon of crime has not been seized in course of investigation. The material exhibit seized by the prosecution has not been produced in course of trial.
32. For the reasons assigned and discussed, hereinabove, the appellant is acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. The impugned 27 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.382 of 1998 27. judgment and order of conviction dated 16th September 1998 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.66 of 1996/36 of 1996/67 of 1995, are hereby set aside. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.
33. The appeal stands allowed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Patna High Court, Patna The 30th July, 2012 Md.S./NAFR.