Patna High Court
Satyendra Rai & Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 31 July, 2014
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Jitendra Mohan Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Against the judgment dated 27.08.1991 and sentence dated 28.08.1991, passed by
Sri Balgovind Prasad, 3rdAdditional Sessions Judge, Rohtas in Sessions Trial
No.220/42 of 1982/85, arising out of Dinara P.S. Case No.19/81 (G.R. No.221/81).
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.347 of 1991
===========================================================
1. Satendra Rai,
2. Jitendra Rai,
3. Upendra Rai,
All sons of Ram Pravesh Rai.
4. Subhas Rai, son of Kesho Rai.
5. Ram Pravesh alias Ram Pravesh Rai, son of Harbansh Rai.
All residents of village-Kori, P.S.-Dinara, District-Rohtas.
.... .... Appellants.
Versus
The State of Bihar. .... .... Respondent.
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Birendra Prasad Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Choubey Jawahar, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)
Date: 31-07-2014
A supplementary affidavit has been filed bringing
on record that appellant no.5-Ram Pravesh alias Ram Pravesh
Rai died during pendency of this appeal on 14.09.2008. The
death certificate of Ram Pravesh alias Ram Pravesh Rai is
annexed with the supplementary affidavit.
2. Having heard the parties, in our view, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 1991 dt.31-07-2014
-2-
appeal in relation to appellant no.5-Ram Pravesh alias Ram
Pravesh Rai abates.
3. In the supplementary affidavit a copy of the
judgment and order dated 10thof July, 1998 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.340 of 1991 has been annexed in which appeal the
appellants are the same as this present appeal and the incident
relating to the said appeal is closely connected with the present
appeal. We will at appropriate stage deal with the relevance of
the said judgment of this Court.
4. The prosecution case in the present case is
based on the fardbeyan (Ext.2) of P.W.4-Bala Kumhar. The
same was recorded by Mr. Ragho Prasad Singh, the Officer-in-
Charge of the Dinara Police Station, District-Rohtas, inter alia,
alleging therein that the appellants and Kesho Rai (now dead)
had murdered Baijnath Kumhar in the evening of 27.01.1981
whose dead body was lying in Khalihan and was being
watched by the informant, the brother of deceased Baijnath
Kumhar along with Moti Kumhar, Suraj Kumhar, Sheobhajan
Sah, Deomuni Sah, Suresh Dhobi, Ram Eqbal Kumhar, Faguni
Kumhar and „Chaukidar‟ Rupnarain Giri. At about 2 am on
28.01.1981, the appellants and Kesho Rai again returned to the place of occurrence in order to remove the dead body and to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 1991 dt.31-07-2014 -3- conceal the evidence of crime and, in course thereof, being unsuccessful in doing so, they fired injuring Suraj Kumhar (P.W.2), Bala Kumhar (P.W.4) and Moti Lal (P.W.5). Villagers came and the appellants escaped. It is upon this fardbeyan that the formal F.I.R. (Ext.1) was registered. The police took up investigation. The injured persons were examined by doctor and injury reports were prepared, which is Exts.4, 4/1 & 4/2. After investigation police submitted a charge-sheet. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellants pleaded not guilty and required the trial. Charges were thereafter framed under Sections-147, 307/149 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code and so far as appellant no.1-Satendra Rai is concerned, he was separately charged under Section-27 of the Arms Act also. They were accordingly tried and variously convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with other sentences to run concurrently. Hence, the appeal.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. It needs to be noted that one Shiv Dayal Singh, „Taid‟ (Advocate‟s Clerk) was examined as Court witness, which, we find quite curious and will comment upon at appropriate stage. The manner in which the trial has been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 1991 dt.31-07-2014 -4- conducted by the Trial Court can only be deprecated. The defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.
6. Before proceeding further, we may notice one important aspect and the relevance of judgment of this Court dated 10thof July, 1998 in Criminal Appeal No.340 of 1991. As noted above, the prosecution case is that first the appellants came in the evening and shot Baijnath Kumhar in the „Khalihan‟. This gave rise to a separate substantive case being Sessions Trial No.218 of 1982/20 of 1985. In the said trial the Trial Court convicted all the five accused persons who are also accused in the present case. In fact, the judgment was passed by the same Court on the same day in both the cases. The Trial Court found that the appellants were guilty of murdering Baijnath Kumhar and then fled away. The matter came in appeal before this Court and in the said criminal appeal, being Cr. Appeal No.340 of 1991, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 10thof July, 1998 by a Division Bench of this Court, it was held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge of murder at the hands of the appellants. This Court doubted the very allegation that Baijnath Kumhar was shot dead in the evening. It came to a finding that he might Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 1991 dt.31-07-2014 -5- have been shot dead later in the night as upon postmortem sufficient quantity of undigested food was found. Thus, the finding of this Court in the said appeal is that the prosecution failed to establish that it was the appellants who killed the Baijnath Kumhar.
7. Mr. Birendra Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal, submits that if this be true or if this be doubted, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is binding, then the genesis given in the present case is totally falsified because the allegation is that the appellants killed Baijnath Kumhar in the evening and later in the night came to carry away the dead body to remove the evidence. If the first part has not been believed then there was no cause for the second part at all and the second part itself has to fall. In this trial this evidence cannot be led by the prosecution that the appellants had killed Baijnath Kumhar. The finding of this Court in the earlier appeal as between the same party would bind the second case on principles of issue estoppel. Suffice to say that issue estoppel is not a principle applicable only to civil cases. It has been consistently recognized by the Apex Court and has been applied in criminal cases as well, for example in the case of Pritam Singh and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 1991 dt.31-07-2014 -6- another Vs. The State of Punjab since reported in AIR 1956 Supreme Court 415. In that case, a person was charged of using a firearm (pistol) to kill a person. In the trial for an offence under Arms Act he was acquitted. When the murder trial started the Court held him guilty of using the firearm to kill. When the matter reached the Apex Court, the Apex Court held that the Court in the subsequent trial was precluded from reopening the issue with regard to use of firearm because that stood concluded by finding of a competent Court in a competent trial that the appellant had not used the pistol. That issue was decided and in subsequent trial evidence to the contrary could not be permitted. The Apex Court relying on the decision of the Court of appeals said thus:-
".....The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent Court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated by saying that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence.
To that it must be added that the
verdict is binding and conclusive
in all subsequent proceedings
between the parties to the
adjudication.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 1991 dt.31-07-2014 -7- The maxim „res judicata pro veritate accipitur‟ is no less applicable to criminal than to civil proceedings. Here, the appellant having been acquitted at the first trial on the charge of having ammunition in his possession, the prosecution was bound to accept the correctness of that verdict and was precluded from taking any steps to challenge it at the second trial...."
8. This view has been consistently followed by Apex Court. The correctness of the view of the Apex Court in Pritam Singh's case was questioned and negatived by the Apex Court in the case of Lalta and others Vs. The State of U.P. since reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1381 wherein the principle stated in Pritam Singh's case was reiterated in relation to issue estoppel and its applicability to criminal cases.
9. Mr. Birendra Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel submits that if that be so then the entire fardbeyan of this second case crashes to the ground. The foundation thereupon being the appellant shot and killed Baijnath Kumhar and in order to remove the evidence they have come again and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 1991 dt.31-07-2014 -8- fired injuring persons accordingly becomes imaginary. If the first is not acceptable then there is no occasion for the second part.
10. In our view, this is the correct position and the correct result. However, we would not like to rest our judgment on that alone. As we find it curious, the manner in which the Trial Court proceeded to record evidence and appreciate the same, which needs to be commented upon.
11. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses.
What is curious is that the documents that were required to be exhibited, i.e., the fardbeyan, the formal F.I.R. and the injury report, none of them have been proved in accordance with law. They are all proved by Advocate‟s Clerks who are available "dime a dozen" in Civil Courts, merely for the asking.
12. P.W.1 is Gopal Prasad Singh, a Advocate‟s Clerk, who proved the formal F.I.R. which is Ext.1. How he is competent to prove the formal F.I.R. is not explained? In his cross-examination, he is clearly discredited and his competence to prove the said document stands discredited as well. P.W.11 is Jaganath Dubey, who is again a Advocate‟s Clerk, who proved the fardbeyan (Ext.2). How he is competent to do so is also anybody‟s guess, especially when the narrator of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 1991 dt.31-07-2014 -9- fardbeyan is Bala Kumhar (P.W.4) who has never been confronted by the prosecution with the fardbeyan. Similarly, Nagnath Dubey (P.W.12) is another Advocate‟s Clerk who proved paragraph 1 to 35 of the case diary, which is marked as Ext.3. We wonder how a case diary can be exhibited and marked as an exhibit to be used as prosecution evidence. We are totally at a loss. The law does not permit it. The law recognizes a limited use of the case diary either to refresh memory or to contradict a witness. It can never be used as a substantive piece of evidence.
13. We then have a funnier and a stranger situation. From the order-sheet of the Trial Court dated 19.07.1991, it appears that the prosecution was waiting to get the injury reports with regard to injury on the person of Suraj Kumhar (P.W.2), Bala Kumhar (P.W.4) and Moti Lal (P.W.5) to be proved but they could not persuade or get Dr. K.P. Singh, who drew up the injury report, to come to the Court to depose. The A.P.P. filed an application to the Court that there is a Advocate‟s Clerk in the Court who can prove the injury reports. The Court purportedly in exercise of power under Section-311 of the Cr.P.C. passes an order calling Sri Shiv Dayal Singh, an Advocate‟s Clerk, as Court witness, who has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 1991 dt.31-07-2014
- 10 -
nothing to do with the said doctor or the said injury reports. We are indeed surprised. The Court was oblivious of the legal provisions. What is more surprising that each of these documents, i.e., Exts.1, 2, 3 and 4 series, which have been admitted in evidence and relied upon in the Court, were incompetently proved. Mr. Birendra Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, rightly submitted that these Advocate‟s Clerks witnesses are nothing but what is commonly called as "Sankat Mochan" witnesses. They freely float in Civil Courts and for a price will appear as a witness to prove anyone‟s case when competent persons are not available for any reason. If such practice is permitted, they are permitted to give evidence and evidence given by them is relied upon, it would be farcical and we would make a mockery of the Evidence Act and the trial of the Courts. We would only be short of having Advocate‟s Clerks substituting the witnesses themselves. It has to be deprecated in the strongest word. The evidence given by them or obtained through them is not admissible and cannot be relied upon. They are neither author of the document nor its owner nor are they privy to the documents thereof. We are simply amazed at the Trial Court‟s understanding of Evidence Act. We say no more.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 1991 dt.31-07-2014
- 11 -
14. If these evidences are removed from considerations then what are we left with? First we have seen the very foundation of the genesis of the occurrence crumbles to the ground, i.e., the allegation of the appellants having shot dead Baijnath Kumhar does not stand to scrutiny. Then, the evidences, i.e., the fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. and the injury reports, which are not proved legally, all have to be excluded from consideration. Then, all this is left is the statement of two witnesses, i.e., Suraj Kumhar (P.W.2) and Bala Kumhar (P.W.4), who are brothers of the deceased and claimed to be eye witnesses along with Rup Narayan Giri (P.W.9), the village Chaukidar.
15. The two brothers, i.e., Suraj Kumhar (P.W.2) and Bala Kumhar (P.W.4) state in their deposition before the Court consistently that in the evening the five appellants came shot their brother, Baijnath Kumhar and escaped. While they send their other brother, Talika Kumhar to inform the police, they along with the village „Chaukidar‟ and several others were guarding the dead body. When late in the night at about 2 am the five appellants again returned this time to carry away the dead body in order to conceal the evidence of murder and in the process shot and injured Suraj Kumhar (P.W.2), Bala Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 1991 dt.31-07-2014
- 12 -
Kumhar (P.W.4) and Moti Lal (P.W.5). They clearly state that the village „Chaukidar‟ was also with him. But, when we come to the evidence of village „Chaukidar‟, Rup Narayan Giri (P.W.9), who is the only independent eye witness, he falsifies the entire prosecution story. According to him, while people had gone to the police to inform about the murder, it was he who was guarding the dead body being the village „Chaukidar‟ late in the night. He heard shouts and firing from a distance. He then saw Bala Kumhar and Suraj Kumhar and two others but did not know about the injuries on them. This deposition is of some importance because the village „Chaukidar‟, being an independent witness, clearly states that there was no firing at the „Khalihan‟ where he was guarding the body. The appellants were not there and there was no perceivable injury on the person of Suraj Kumhar or Bala Kumhar contrary to their allegation that they received pellet injury for which Dr. K.P. Singh prepared injury report, which injury report was incompetently proved by a „Taid‟ (Advocate‟s Clerk) who does not even know Dr. K.P. Singh. What we then left with? Nothing. There is no material on record to establish the prosecution case. We can only say that we regret the manner in which the Trial Court permitted evidence to be led through Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 1991 dt.31-07-2014
- 13 -
one „Taid‟ (Advocate‟s Clerk) to another and going to the extent of calling an Advocate‟s Clerk as a Court witness as well.
16. We, thus, have to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants far less beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is, thus, to be allowed. The conviction and sentence as passed against the appellants has to be set aside. The appellants are relieved from liabilities of their bail bonds.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
Trivedi/AFR (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.)
U T