Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The prosecution has relied on evidence of confessional statement of accused Mithun allegedly leading to the discovery of dead body of Laxman Paswan from the field of Md. Javed. For this purpose, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.6 Upendra Paswan, P.W.1 Adalat Paswan and P.W.8 Sudhir Kumar, the Investigating Officer. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that according to the prosecution case reflected from the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.6 Upendra Paswan, Laxman went missing from the house on 22.03.2010, on 23.03.2010, he lodged a missing report at Police Outpost- Gangour and on 24.03.2010, he heard gossip in the village that accused Mithun and Tuntun killed Laxman. It is case of the prosecution reflected from the F.I.R. that upon hearing this gossip, the Police Station Officer called accused Mithun and Tuntun to the police station and interrogated them, accused Mithun confessed the guilt by stating that he killed Laxman. Thereupon P.W.6 Upendra Paswan went to the spot of the incident as told by accused Mithun to the police and saw the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.178 of 2014 dt.05-07-2022 dead body of his nephew Laxman Paswan lying in the field of Md. Javed situated at Bagras Tola of village-Bela Simri.

12. In the light of this prosecution case, if the evidence of P.W.6 Upendra Paswan is perused, then it is clear that he claimed that initially he lodged the F.I.R. and then went to the spot of the incident. Thereafter, police came on the spot of the incident with the accused and found the dead body. P.W.6 Upendra Paswan testified that he lodged missing report on 22.03.2010 after Laxman went missing and, accordingly, Sanha entry was taken by police. He further stated that at 10.00 A.M. of 23.03.2010, the Police Station Officer called him, they searched Laxman, who was not found. P.W.6 Upendra Paswan categorically deposed that then on 24.0.3.2010, the Police Station Officer recorded his F.I.R. and thereafter apprehended accused Mithun and Tuntun, who were then interrogated. He further deposed that during interrogation of the accused, at 04.15 P.M., the Police Station Officer took the accused to the place of the incident as per their say and from that field of Md. Javed, dead body of Laxman came to be recovered. He deposed that neck of Laxman was blackened and blood was oozing from dead body of Laxman. This evidence of P.W.6 Upendra Paswan is totally contrary to his version in the F.I.R. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.178 of 2014 dt.05-07-2022 In the F.I.R., P.W.6 Upendra Paswan has stated that after hearing the gossip in the village regarding commission of murder by accused, police called both of them, interrogated them and after hearing their confession made to the police, he himself went to the spot, saw dead body of Laxman and then lodged the F.I.R. This divergent version of P.W.6 Upendra makes the prosecution case doubtful.

13. Though it is averred by P.W.6 Upendra Paswan in his F.I.R. that he went to the spot of the incident disclosed by accused Mithun to the Police during his interrogation prior to the lodgement of the F.I.R., in his cross-examination, P.W.6 Upendra Paswan has candidly stated that accused Mithun was not interrogated by police in his presence and he saw accused Mithun only after his arrest by the police at 05.00 P.M. of 24.03.2010. As such, it was not expected of P.W.6 Upendra Paswan to go to the spot of the incident to see dead body of Laxman after hearing confession of accused Mithun at the police station. In cross-examination, P.W.6 Upendra Paswan further clarified that he saw dead body of Laxman when he went to the police station. Thus, this version of P.W.6 Upendra Paswan is also totally contrary to the F.I.R. lodged by him in which it is averred by him that he went to the spot of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.178 of 2014 dt.05-07-2022 incident and saw the dead body of Laxman lying in the field.

14. P.W.1 Adalat Paswan is a co-villager, who saw the dead body and had acted as Pancha to the inquest. As per his version, he along with P.W.6 Upendra Paswan went to the police station where Upendra lodged report and then he as well as Upendra went to Bagras Tola for searching Laxman. P.W.1 Adalat Paswan claimed that then police came to that spot with accused Mithun and Tuntun and, thereafter, on disclosure by the accused, dead body of Laxman was found in the field belonging to a Muslim person. From evidence of P.W.1 Adalat Paswan, it is again clear that the lodgement of the F.I.R. was first in point of time by P.W.6 Upendra Paswan and, thereafter, dead body of Laxman was found in the field of Javed. This version of P.W.1 Adalat Paswan is also totally contradictory to the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.6 Upendra Paswan at 04.15 P.M. of 24.03.2010, allegedly at the spot of the incident after finding of the dead body of Laxman. Thus, evidence of P.W.1 Adalat Paswan is also not consistent with the case of prosecution.