Patna High Court - Orders
Baijnath Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 7 May, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.203 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2009 Thana- TARAIYA District- Saran
======================================================
Arjun Yadav @ Arjun Rai, S/o Late Kameshwar Ray, R/o Village- Sitalpatti,
P.S.- Taraiya, Distt- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Baijnath Singh, S/o Late Ram Chandra Singh, R/o village- Dumari, P.S.-
Taraiya, Distt- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 119 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2009 Thana- TARAIYA District- Saran
======================================================
Baijnath Singh S/O Late Ramchandra Singh, Resident of village- Dumari,
P.O.- Dumari, P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 203 of 2023)
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Nikita Mittal, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 119 of 2023)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ansul, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
13 07-05-2025Records have been placed before this Court for hearing on the point of sentence. Respondent No. 2 (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 203 of 2023) has been produced before this Court. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2023(13) dt.07-05-2025 2/6
2. Mr. Ansul, learned Senior Counsel submits that in this case a lenient view is required to be taken and only the minimum punishment be imposed upon the appellant (Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 119 of 2023) for the reason that this case will not come within the category of rarest of the rare cases.
3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the occurrence in this case has taken place on account of some dispute and the manner in which the deceased was assaulted does not show extreme brutality on the part of the appellant in action. The appellant is about 45 years old and no criminal antecedent of the appellant has been proved in this case.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the prosecution has not led any evidence in this case that there is no chance of reformation of the appellant.
5. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Machhi Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1983) 3 SCC 479, Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 12 SCC 460, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharashtra and its analogous case reported in (2009) 6 SCC 498 and Mofil Khan & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in (2021) 20 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2023(13) dt.07-05-2025 3/6 SCC 162.
6. It is submitted that in all these judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered as to how the sentences are to be awarded and what would be the factors for consideration therefor. In this regard, paragraphs '14', '15 and '16' of the judgment in the case of Mofil Khan (supra) have been relied upon which we reproduce hereunder for a ready reference:-
"14. One of the mitigating circumstances is the probability of the accused being reformed and rehabilitated. The State is under a duty to procure evidence to establish that there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. Death sentence ought not to be imposed, save in the rarest of the rare cases when the alternative option of a lesser punishment is unquestionably foreclosed (see : Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab11). To satisfy that the sentencing aim of reformation is unachievable, rendering life imprisonment completely futile, the Court will have to highlight clear evidence as to why the convict is not fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme. This analysis can only be done with rigour when the Court focuses on the circumstances relating to the criminal, along with other circumstances (see : Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra12). In Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra13, this Court dealt with the review of a judgment14 of this Court confirming death sentence and observed as under : (Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik case13, SCC p. 483, para 45) "45. The law laid down by various decisions of this Court clearly and unequivocally mandates that the probability (not possibility or improbability or impossibility) that a convict can be reformed and rehabilitated in society must be seriously and earnestly considered by the courts before awarding the death sentence. This is one of the mandates of the "special reasons" requirement of Section 354(3)CrPC and ought
11. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580]
12. (2009) 6 SCC 498 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150
13. (2019) 12 SCC 460 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 420
14. Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 4 SCC 37 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 30] Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2023(13) dt.07-05-2025 4/6 not to be taken lightly since it involves snuffing out the life of a person. To effectuate this mandate, it is the obligation on the prosecution to prove to the court, through evidence, that the probability is that the convict cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. This can be achieved by bringing on record, inter alia, material about his conduct in jail, his conduct outside jail if he has been on bail for some time, medical evidence about his mental make-up, contact with his family and so on. Similarly, the convict can produce evidence on these issues as well."
15. It would be profitable to refer to a judgment of this Court in Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar [Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar15, in which it was held that before imposing the extreme penalty of death sentence, the Court should satisfy itself that death sentence is imperative, as otherwise the convict would be a threat to the society, and that there is no possibility of reform or rehabilitation of the convict, after giving the convict an effective, meaningful, real opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence, by producing material. The hearing of sentence should be effective and even if the accused remains silent, the Court would be obliged and duty- bound to elicit relevant factors.
16. It is well-settled law that the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict is an important factor which has to be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance before sentencing him to death. There is a bounden duty cast on the courts to elicit information of all the relevant factors and consider those regarding the possibility of reformation, even if the accused remains silent. A scrutiny of the judgments of the trial court, the High Court and this Court would indicate that the sentence of death is imposed by taking into account the brutality of the crime. There is no reference to the possibility of reformation of the petitioners, nor has the State procured any evidence to prove that there is no such possibility with respect to the petitioners."
7. On the other hand Ms. Nikita Mittal, learned counsel for the appellant (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 203 of 2023)
15. (2019) 16 SCC 584 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 382] Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2023(13) dt.07-05-2025 5/6 has, however, submitted that the respondent no.2 deserves the highest degree of punishment considering that he repeatedly assaulted the deceased at a place in another village where he had gone for grinding flour and when he was not in a position to save himself.
8. Mr. Dayal, learned Additional P.P. for the State has endorsed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 203 of 2023) deserves the highest punishment.
9. We have considered the rival submissions at the Bar. In the given circumstances which have been placed before us, we are of the considered opinion that this case would not fall in the category of the rarest of the rare cases. There is also no evidence on record that the appellant (Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.119 of 2023) cannot be reformed.
10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we direct that the appellant (Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.119 of 2023) namely Baijnath Singh shall undergo rigorous life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and shall be liable to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand). In case of failure of the appellant to pay the fine, he shall undergo an additional period of imprisonment for six months. The period spent by the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.203 of 2023(13) dt.07-05-2025 6/6 appellant in jail shall be set off in accordance with law.
11. We have noticed from the judgment of the learned Trial Court that the Trial Court has directed the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Saran at Chapra to initiate appropriate action for payment of compensation to the victim in accordance with law under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. as per the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014. We have been informed, till date no compensation has been given to the appellant, if it is so, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Saran at Chapra shall ensure that appropriate steps is taken within a period of two months from the receipt/production of a copy of this order towards making payment of compensation under the provisions of the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the all concerned.
13. The Superintendent of Jail, Beur, Patna shall transmit the convict to the Divisional Jail, Saran at Chapra with adequate security where he will undergo the rest sentence.
14. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Lata/-
Jagdish/-
U T