Patna High Court
Rama Nand Singh vs State Of Bihar on 9 September, 2014
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Jitendra Mohan Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 337 of 1992
*****
Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
04.08.1992/05.08.1992 passed by Shri Paras Nath Singh, Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 1990. ===========================================================
1. Rama Nand Singh, Son of Ram Kumar Singh,
2. Ram Kumar Singh, Son of Phudena Singh (Appeal as against the appellant no. 2 abated vide order dated 21.04.2006) Both, resident of Village - Bela, P.S. Chiraiya, P.O. Mirpur, District - East Champaran .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance:
For the Appellant: Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondent-State: Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. For the Informant: Mr. Dilip Kumar Tandon, Advocate. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 09-09-2014 Originally, there were two appellants to this appeal, which is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 04.08.10992 and 05.08.1992 respectively as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 1990. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant no. 2 Ram Kumar Singh died and, by virtue of order dated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.337 of 1992 dt.09-09-2014 2/14 21.04.2006, the appeal insofar as it relates to Ram Kumar Singh was held to have abated as against him. We are thus left with the appeal preferred by the appellant no. 1 Rama Nand Singh, son of Ram Kumar Singh.
2. The prosecution case is based upon the Fardbeyan of one Amiri Lal Singh (PW8) as recorded by Sri Raghunath Dubey, Officer-in-charge of Chiraiya Police Station, District - East Champaran at Motihari, on 23.03.1988 at 5:15 P.M. at Village - Bela.
It is alleged that while the informant and his father Hit Lal Singh were thrashing their agricultural crops Masoor and Teesi, appellant no. 2 Ram Kumar Singh, who had his house across the road, started abusing Hit Lal Singh. Hit Lal Singh then walked towards the road questioning as to why he was abusing. Ram Kumar Singh also came on to the road and continued to abuse. In course of altercations, Rama Nand Singh, son of Ram Kumar Singh, also came there and caught hold of Hit Lal Singh. Ram Kumar Singh allegedly took a Gupti (a long dagger) and stabbed Hit Lal Singh on the left side of his chest while Rama Nand Singh, his son, was holding the deceased from back. The deceased withered in pain and moved a few steps and fell on Masoor (agricultural crop). In the meantime, on hearing abuses and altercations, several people had assembled there, being Raj Narayan Singh (PW1), Bir Vansh Singh (PW2), Ram Chandra Singh Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.337 of 1992 dt.09-09-2014 3/14 (PW3), Saryug Singh (PW4) and Paspat Singh (PW5). They all then disarmed Ram Kumar Singh, who thereafter along with his son ran away. The Gupti was then kept near the dead body of Hit Lal Singh.
3. The motive for the heinous crime was attributed to a land dispute between the two in which Ram Kumar Singh had lost the Title Suit as against Hit Lal Singh and he had filed an appeal before the District Judge which was pending. Upon this, Fardbeyan being recorded, a formal case was registered and the Investigating Officer (PW10) Raghunath Dubey took up the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet having been filed and pursuant to the cognizance having been taken, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions where the appellants, having pleaded not guilty, were tried and convicted. Hence, the appeal.
4. The case of the defence, as apparent from the defence witnesses and suggestions, is that apparently there are two persons in the village; one Ram Kumar Singh and other Ram Pukar Singh. What is sought to be suggested is that the crime was committed by Ram Pukar Singh. The second limb of defence is that when the Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, he found the appellant Ram Kumar Singh (now deceased) lying unconscious. The Investigating Officer then found that his wife and his daughter-in-law were also variously injured. All the three were then sent to the State Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.337 of 1992 dt.09-09-2014 4/14 Dispensary for being attended to. On the next morning on 24.03.1998, the Fardbeyan of Ram Kumar Singh was recorded in which he alleged that it was Hit Lal Singh, who was abusing him, which led to the altercations wherein he, his wife and his daughter-in-law were assaulted. Thus, the defence is of a case and a counter-case and as the prosecution had not accounted for the injuries on the defence, it must fail. The third defence is that so far as the appellant Rama Nand Singh is concerned, he was an employee in the Gandak Project where he was an Amin (Surveyor). He was in his office at that time and nowhere near the place of occurrence. He has been falsely implicated in the case.
5. We have to see whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses. The defence has examined 3 witnesses. PW8 Amiri Lal Singh is the informant and son of the deceased Hit Lal Singh. He is an eye witness to the occurrence. PW9 Dr. Akhilesh Sharan Sinha conducted the post-mortem examination and submitted the post-mortem report in relation to the deceased Hit Lal Singh. As noted earlier, Raghunath Dubey (PW10), the Investigating Officer, had also recorded the Fardbeyan at the first instance. PW11 Rajendra Prasad Singh was the Incharge of Malkhana. PW4 Saryug Singh, who Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.337 of 1992 dt.09-09-2014 5/14 is the uncle of the informant, and PW7 Maheshwar Singh, both have been tendered. PW6 Kashinath Prasad has seen nothing but is merely an attesting witness to the Fardbeyan.
7. Let us begin by the evidence of PW8 Amiri Lal Singh, the informant. In his deposition before the court, he states that while they were thrashing their agricultural crop adjacent to their house, Ram Kumar Singh started abusing from across the street, sitting in his house. His father Hit Lal Singh (the deceased) objected and questioned. Then he started moving to the road towards the house of Ram Kumar Singh. Ram Kumar Singh also came on to the road and continued to abuse. When his father protested, Rama Nand Singh, son of Ram Kumar Singh, came and caught hold of Hit Lal Singh from the back and Ram Kumar Singh took out a Gupti (a long dagger like weapon) and stabbed Hit Lal Singh on the left side of his chest. Hit Lal Singh withered in pain and moved a few steps and fell dead on the agricultural crop kept beside the house. Several people had come. PW4 Saryug Singh and the informant then allegedly disarmed Ram Kumar Singh and put the Gupti near the dead body. In the meantime, Ram Kumar Singh and Rama Nand Singh managed to escape. He further states that he had told PW1 Raj Narayan Singh, who had seen the occurrence, to inform the police. That the incident having taken place on 23.03.1988 at 3:00 P.M., the police arrived by 5:00 P.M. and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.337 of 1992 dt.09-09-2014 6/14 recorded his statement and statement of other witnesses. The Investigating Officer sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and seized the Gupti. In his cross-examination, the informant admits that all the witnesses and the parties, i.e. the prosecution and the defence, they are agnates. He admits that there had been litigation between the two branches, i.e., his branch and that of the defence. His father had won the litigation. He admits that Saryug Singh is his uncle. He states that in the Fardbeyan, he had disclosed to the police that it was Saryug Singh (PW4) and the informant, who had taken the Gupti from the hand of Ram Kumar Singh. This statement of the informant is of some importance to the defence because in the Fardbeyan this is not what is stated. What is stated is that when other people came, they disarmed Ram Kumar Singh. He then admits in paragraph 12 of his deposition that Ram Kumar Singh has lodged a case of assault being a counter-case against them. He denies that they had assaulted the wife of Ram Kumar Singh or his daughter-in-law, being the wife of Rama Nand Singh. He denies the suggestion that there had been altercations between the parties in which Ram Kumar Singh was brutally assaulted by Hit Lal Singh and the informant. He had fallen unconscious. His wife and his daughter-in-law were also assaulted. He denies the suggestion that the police had sent them for medical treatment.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.337 of 1992 dt.09-09-2014 7/14
8. We would then see that the evidence of Raj Narayan Singh (PW1), Bir Vansh Singh (PW2), Ram Chandra Singh (PW3) and Paspat Singh (PW5) are consistent on material aspects of abusing, stabbing, disarming and running away of the two accused. Their testimony remains unshaken. To them suggestion is also given that the appellant Rama Nand Singh was a government employee and was at his place of duty and was not there, which suggestion has been denied.
9. We would then have the evidence of PW10 Raghunath Dubey, the Investigating Officer. He states that in the evening, he heard rumours about some quarrel at Village - Bela under Chiraiya Police Station where he was the Officer-in-charge. He made Sanaha entry in the Police Station Diary and proceeded to the village. At the village, he found Hit Lal Singh dead, but he also found the appellant Ram Kumar Singh lying nearby unconscious. Having drawn up the inquest report, while he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination at Motihari Sadar Hospital, he referred Ram Kumar Singh to the State Dispensary along with his wife and his daughter-in- law, who were also found injured. He saw the place of occurrence. He recorded the statements of various witnesses, who were present there. The Gupti was then produced before him and he prepared the production list thereon. Upon completion of the investigation, he Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.337 of 1992 dt.09-09-2014 8/14 submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, he admits that on the next date, i.e. 24.03.1988, he went to the State Dispensary and recorded the statement of Ram Kumar Singh and, on that basis, he registered a counter-case as well. He received injury reports of Ram Kumar Singh, his wife and his daughter-in-law, but upon completion of final investigation in the second case and its supervision, he filed the final report, not sending up any person for trial. So far as the case as lodged by Amiri Lal Singh is concerned, he found enough material to submit the charge-sheet. He admits that he has not prepared any seizure list with regard to any blood stained soil collected from the place of occurrence or the place where the deceased was found dead. To him suggestion is given that Ram Kumar Singh and Ram Pukar Singh are two different persons in the village, he denies the said fact and states that this point had been investigated by him and he has noted it in the police case diary that there are no two persons and it is the same Ram Kumar Singh, who is also known as Ram Pukar Singh. His testimony corroborates the place of occurrence and his investigation corroborates the manner of occurrence.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant then draws our attention to the deposition of the defence witnesses. DW 1 is Dr. Jawahar Lal. He has prepared three injury reports in relation to the appellant Ram Kumar Singh, his wife and his daughter-in-law at the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.337 of 1992 dt.09-09-2014 9/14 instance of the Investigating Officer. He has signed these injury reports. The other two defence witnesses are not of much relevance.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants first submits that if we look to the F.I.R., there is a categorical statement of thrashing; that upon hearing the altercations, a lot of people had assembled at the place of occurrence; that in course of altercations allegedly Ram Kumar Singh stabbed Hit Lal Singh; and that they disarmed him. But if we see the evidence of the informant, he changes the story and says that it is Saryug Singh (PW4) and the informant Amiri Lal Singh (PW8), who had disarmed Ram Kumar Singh. Therefore, there is a material contradiction and change in the story set up by the prosecution. In our view, this is not of much consequence. When all of sudden such altercations and incident take place, it is not necessary that everyone would see evidence in the same manner and remember it with photographic memory all along. These are very minor variations and they cannot be taken note of as material change in the prosecution story. These are natural variations.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants next suggests that there have been injuries on the person of the accused which cannot be denied. Those injuries have not even been noticed in the Fardbeyan; nor explained by the prosecution. That would show that the prosecution is trying to hide the real version and project a false story. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.337 of 1992 dt.09-09-2014 10/14 We are not impressed. There is no inconsistency in the prosecution evidence with regard to the place of occurrence, the manner of occurrence and the death of Hit Lal Singh by a singular stabbing wound piercing right through his heart. The fact that appellant Ram Kumar Singh was found unconscious is also now not in dispute. For the sake of argument, it is accepted that the injuries on the wife of Ram Kumar Singh and his daughter-in-law are also not in dispute.
13. Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the sequence of events is that virtually for no rhyme or reason, Hit Lal Singh was abused by Ram Kumar Singh and with the help of his son Rama Nand Singh, he stabbed Hit Lal Singh. The other witnesses, who were all then present in and around the place of occurrence, had assembled. They were all agnates. They caught hold of Ram Kumar Singh. He was thrashed. In the meantime, the two ladies, i.e. the wife of Ram Kumar Singh and his daughter-in- law, being the wife of Rama Nand Singh, also tried to intervene and they were also thrashed along with Ram Kumar Singh. This was in retaliation to what Ram Kumar Singh had done. That is, but obvious. He further points out that Ram Kumar Singh had made a statement to the police which was registered as a substantive case as against the informant Amiri Lal Singh and others. Here again, Ram Kumar Singh does not even mention as to the injury on the person of Hit Lal Singh Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.337 of 1992 dt.09-09-2014 11/14 (the deceased) or about his death. To the contrary, in that Fardbeyan, he states that Hit Lal Singh had assaulted him with lathi on his back. Therefore, they have also concealed that part of the incident. In my view, these facts are not material because the prosecution evidence is consistent about the place and the manner of occurrence and, that is what, is material for our judgment.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants then vehemently argued that there is no motive. We are sorry, we cannot accept this. He draws our attention to the depositions of various witnesses; some of whom states that there is no case as between Hit Lal Singh and Ram Kumar Singh, but then the informant himself has disclosed that there had been a case, which Ram Kumar Singh had lodged and lost. He had filed an appeal, which was pending before the learned District Judge. It must be remembered that they are agnates and all of them live in close vicinity where one set of descendants grouped together in the fight as against other. The enmity or the disgust towards the other cannot be and is not ruled out. Moreover, we are of the view that motive is not an ingredient for an offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder. The motive may help in furthering the case of the prosecution, but absence thereof, does not mean that the prosecution case must fail. Repeatedly, it has been held that even if the prosecution fails to prove the motive, if it proves the occurrence Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.337 of 1992 dt.09-09-2014 12/14 that by itself is sufficient. We see no reason to take a different view. If we refer to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, it nowhere refers to 'motive'. There is a distinction between 'motive' and 'intention'. They are two different and distinct aspects. 'Motive' is the reason that may be ascribed which was behind the intention to kill. The prosecution, having failed to prove motive, cannot lead to acquittal. Even otherwise, as in this case, the prosecution has been able to prove the act of killing.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants then submits that the defence had given suggestion that the appellant Rama Nandan Singh, who is the sole surviving appellant now, was in government employment at Motihari as an Amin in the Gandak Project. He was not present. He has been falsely implicated. He was in his office. We regret that such a stand was taken by the defence because this is nothing but a plea of alibi. Once, the defence raises a plea of alibi, then by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the defence takes the onus upon itself to prove the same because that is a fact within the special knowledge of the defence. If it does not prove, an adverse view / inference has to be drawn and that adverse inference can only be the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence, participating in the occurrence. We regret that though this defence was taken by the appellants, no effort was at all made to establish the same. The Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.337 of 1992 dt.09-09-2014 13/14 defence did examine witnesses, but not on this aspect at all. It made repeated suggestions on these lines, but took no steps of proving it. Thus, the plea of alibi not having been substantiated, the appellant no. 1, Rama Nand Singh has to face the consequences. He cannot deny his presence now.
16. The last effort of the learned counsel for the appellants is that his father, who had actually stabbed, is already dead. In fact, he died in prison itself. Appellant No. 1 Rama Nand Singh, who was about 45 years of age when he was convicted in 1990, is about 70 years old now and, as such, a compassionate view must be taken. We fail to understand, compassion to whom. Compassion to the deceased or compassion to the killer. We are also aware that if we find a person guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the only discretion that the Court has is the choice of punishments in between death or imprisonment for life. The discretion does not extend any further. Nothing has been shown to us to enable us to reduce the sentence in any manner.
17. Thus, in view of the consistent inescapable evidence of the prosecution with regard to the place of occurrence, the manner of occurrence coupled with the unestablished plea of alibi taken by the appellant no. 1 Rama Nand Singh, we have no option but to hold that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.337 of 1992 dt.09-09-2014 14/14 and, as such, we have no option but to hold the appellant no. 1 Rama Nand Singh guilty of an offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and he has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial court. We see no reason to take a different view of the matter or interfere in any manner. So far as the appellant no. 2 Ram Kumar Singh is concerned, he having died during the pendency of this appeal, his appeal, as ordered earlier, stood abated. The result is, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
18. Appeallant No. 1 Rama Nand Singh must surrender in the court below to serve out his remaining sentence within a period of one month. His bail bonds are cancelled.
19. Let the lower court record be returned to the trial court at once.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) AFR Dilip.
U T