Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

.

-------

The State of Bihar Versus

1. Anand Mohan

2. Prof. Arun Kumar Sinha

3. Akhlakh Ahmad WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO.1282 OF 2007 Lovely Anand the then elected Member of Parliament wife of Sri Anand Mohan, resident of village- Panchgachhia, Police Station- 

  Bihra, District Saharsa                            .... Appellant

                            WITH

      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO.1308 OF 2007

Vijay Kumar Shukla alias Munna Shukla, son of late Ram Das Shukla, resident of village Khanjaha Chak, P.S. Lalganj, District Vaishali.

13. Before proceeding to examine the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and analyzing the relevant evidence in the light of submissions of the parties, it is useful to keep in mind that the defence has not made any serious challenge to the time and place of occurrence. Damage to the car of the deceased and his death in the occurrence is also not in dispute. However, the defence has seriously challenged the presence of such a large number of police witnesses at the place of occurrence, the truthfulness and time of the FIR and the manner of the alleged occurrence. According to the defence the unfortunate occurrence was committed by unknown persons, mainly by the way side crowd which had gathered on the western flank of the road in Kabra village and not by processionists who had left Bhagwanpur Chowk in Muzaffarpur on vehicles which were speeding away towards Lalganj so that cremation of the dead bodies could be held without delay. The submission on behalf of the appellants is that in order to cross the stretch of road over which procession was going by vehicles, admittedly the driver of the deceased DM did not stop and moved on his left flank of the road; thereafter some occurrence took place which enraged the people who had gathered on the western flank at village, Khabra, leading to brickbat and assault. According to defence the real version leading to the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution including the Driver and the Body- guard of the deceased and an exaggerated and false case was created after long deliberations by some of the officials under pressure of the then political party and its leaders on account of political rivalry and because of impending elections to the Legislative Assembly. It is further case of the defence that admittedly the crowd and the procession was unarmed except the alleged shooter, Bhutkun Shukla whose small arm could not be visible to the persons in the procession and the alleged speeches at Bhagwanpur Chowk were admittedly without any dais, mikes or loudspeaker. It was submitted that evidence would show that there was no response from the crowd, no threat of breach of peace and after a halt of about 10 minutes the procession which was a funeral procession and not an unlawful assembly started for Lalganj by vehicles in a peaceful and orderly manner. It was also submitted on behalf of the defence that according to evidence on record the procession was being escorted by police at the front and at the rear and it stopped only after occurrence had taken place and after the noise and exhortation for assault were heard by the persons in the procession including the police who all were moving on the highway on their vehicles. It was also submitted on the basis of medical evidence that the deceased has received fire arm injuries on the two sides of his head at such different angles which could not have been possible had the injured been lying on the ground and the assailant shot while standing, as alleged by the prosecution witnesses.

26. PW 8, Jai Prakash Narain, was ASI of Police Sadar PS at the relevant time. He was also at the rear of the procession along with PW 7 and 12. He claims to have heard appellants Anand Mohan, Lovely Anand and Prof. Arun Kumar Singh loudly exhorting Bhutkun to commit the assault. He also claimed to identify 5-6 including appellants Akhlaque Ahmad, Shashi Shekhar Thakur, Ramesh Thakur, Yogendra Kumar and Munna Kapar as the assailants. In his cross-examination in paragraph 36 he has replied that it took him 7-8 minutes to reach at the place of occurrence. In paragraph 39, he has replied that he saw the injured DM lying down and there was bleeding injury on his head. According to him, all the three shots were fired from a distance of 2-3 feet and at that time the assailant Bhutkun Shukla was standing. In paragraph 71 he has replied that on going back from Hajipur to Sadar PS, 8-10 police officers had assembled at Sadar police station and they discussed regarding the present case. He was there till 12.00 o'clock in the night. He has claimed that nothing was written in his presence but the FIR was lodged before him which he did not read. He claims to have read the FIR on the next day in the morning when he went after 12.00 in the noon. He has admitted that he made no efforts to apprehend Bhutkun Shukla at the place of occurrence or even thereafter. No chase was made of Bhutkun to Lalganj and no effort was made to arrest him at Lalganj. However, he has claimed to have given verbal orders for arrest of Bhutkun Shukla.

31. Further PW 14 has claimed in paragraph 50 that he informed the Superintendent of Police about the occurrence within 10 minutes and thereafter he received information to proceed towards Hajipur. In paragraph 53 he has admitted that the destination of the funeral procession was Lalganj but still he along with other police officers did not go towards Lalganj and instead went to Hajipur. He has explained the delay in not reporting the matter to the police station by stating that since the Officer Incharge was with him, therefore, no entry was made at the police station. In paragraph 61, he has contradicted PW 11 and has claimed that along with other officials he left Hajipur Circuit House for Muzaffarpur at about 7 pm. He has given the distance of Hajipur to Muzaffarpur as 50 kms and has replied in paragraph 64 that on coming back to Muzaffarpur Sadar Police Station half an hour was consumed in holding discussion with Superintendent of Police, District Magistrate and others. In paragraph 71 he has again replied that he got the FIR instituted after taking help from all the officials present there. He claimed that he lodged the FIR after taking statement of 4-5 officials. Recording of such statement took about half an hour and typing of the FIR also took about one hour. He has replied that if the typed report of four pages will be written with hand it will cover about 15 pages which will take about 3-4 hours time in writing. He denied the suggestion that earlier recorded fardbeyan was torn and the present written report was prepared after holding consultation for the whole night. He denied to have heard that the Chief Minister came to the Circuit House at that night. He has admitted that on the formal FIR there is no mention of the date when it was sent to the court. On looking at the station diary entry of 5.12.1994 of Sadar PS he replied that brief description of the occurrence was not entered in the station diary. In paragraph 89 he has replied that he met the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate of Muzaffarpur at Hajipur at 7.30 - 8.00 pm. This creates a serious doubt about his claim that he left Hajipur for Muzaffarpur along with all officials at 7.00 pm.