INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATPATNA
CRIMINALAPPEAL(DB)No.325of2012
ArisingOutofPS.CaseNo.-2Year-1999Thana-C.B.ICASEDistrict-Patna
DHRUVKUMARJAISWAL@DHRUVPRASAD@DHRUVSAO@
DHRUVSAHS/OLateJagdishPrasad,JaiswalResidentOfVillage-Surwal,
P.S.-Ziradei,District-Siwan
……Appellant
Versus
TheStateofBiharthroughC.B.I
……Respondent/s
with
CRIMINALAPPEAL(DB)No.437of2012
ArisingOutofPS.CaseNo.-2Year-1999Thana-C.B.ICASEDistrict-Patna
SHEIKHMUNNA@MUNNAKHAN@MUNNAS/OSheikhNathuni
ResidentOfVillage-Mahmoodpur,P.S.-Jiradei,District-Siwan
……Appellant
Versus
TheUnionofIndiathroughC.B.I
……Respondent
with
CRIMINALAPPEAL(DB)No.435of2012
ArisingOutofPS.CaseNo.-2Year-1999Thana-C.B.ICASEDistrict-Patna
ILLIYASWARIS@MANTUKHAN@MINTUS/OLateTauheedHussain
ResidentOfVillage-Chandpali,P.S.-Jiradei,District-Siwan
……Appellant
Versus
TheUnionofIndiathroughC.B.I
……Respondent
Appearance:
(InCRIMINALAPPEAL(DB)No.325of2012)
FortheAppellant/s:Mr.SurendraSingh,Sr.Adv
Mr.JitendraNarainSinha,Adv.
FortheRespondent/s:Mr.BipinKumarSinhaSC-CBI
(InCRIMINALAPPEAL(DB)No.437of2012)
FortheAppellant/s:Mr.SurendraSingh,Sr.Adv.
Mr.RamadharShekhar,Adv.
FortheRespondent/s:Mr.BipinKumarSinhaSC-CBI
(InCRIMINALAPPEAL(DB)No.435of2012)
FortheAppellant/s:Mr.AjayKumarThakur,Adv.
Mr.RamadharShekhar,Adv.
FortheRespondent/s:Mr.BipinKumarSinhaSC-CBI
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
2/51
CORAM:HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEADITYAKUMAR
TRIVEDI
and
HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEVINODKUMARSINHA
C.A.V.JUDGMENT
(Per:HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEVINODKUMARSINHA)
Date:10-05-2019
1.Asalltheaboveappealsariseoutofsamejudgmentof
convictionandorderofsentence,theyareclubbedtogetherand
arebeingdisposedofbythisconsolidatedjudgmentforthesake
ofconvenience
2.Theappellantsofalltheaboveappealsstoodconvicted
underSections302/Section149,Section307/Section149,Section120BandSection34oftheIndian
PenalCodeaswellasSection27oftheArmsActandwere
sentencedtoundergoR.I.forlifeandafineofRs.25,000/-
underSection302/Section149,R.I.fortenyearsandafineofRs.
10,000/-underSection307/Section149andR.I.forsevenyearsunder
Section120BoftheIndianPenalcodeaswellasR.I.forfive
yearswithafineofRs.5,000underSection27oftheArmsAct
videjudgmentofconvictiondated20.03.2012andorderof
sentencedated23.03.2012passedbyShriDhirendraKumar
Pandey,thethenAdditionalDistrictSessionsJudge-XIV,
Patna-cum-SpecialJudge,C.B.I.-I,PatnainSessionsTrial
No.213/2001.Alltheabovesentencesweredirectedtorun
concurrentlyandindefaultofpaymentoffine,theconvicts
weredirectedtosufferadditionalR.I.foroneyear.
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
3/51
3.ProsecutioncasegivingrisetoSessionsTrialNo.213of
2001,isbasedonthefardbeyanofRameshSinghKushwaha
(PW8)recordedon31.03.1997at17.00hours,statingtherein,
interaliathaton31.03.1997at3P.M.,ShyamNarayanYadav
(deceased)andDistrictCommitteeMemberofCPI(ML),
ChandrashekharPrasad(deceased),FormerPresidentJawahar
LalNehruUniversity,BhrigurashanPatel,aMemberofCPI
(ML)ofBarhthariaPrakhandCommittee(PW10)andRamdeo
Ram,aDistrictCommitteeMember,proceededbyaTempoona
campaignforsuccessofAllBiharBandhaandreachedJ.P.
Chowkassoonasthetempostopped,accusedappellantDhruw
Saharmedwithservicerevolver,accused-appellantMunna
Khanarmedwithservicerevolver,ReyazuddinKhanarmed
withservicerevolverandMantuKhanarmedwithstengun
rushedtowardsthesaidtempoandstartedindiscriminatefiring
andinthesaidfiring,ChandrashekharPrasaddiedonthespot
andShyamNarayanYadavreceivedsevereinjury,
BhrigurashanPatel(PW10)alsoreceivedfirearminjuryand
RamDeoRam(PW13)fellfromthetempoandmanagedto
savehimselfandinthesaidfiring,thepassersbyhavealso
receivedfirearminjury.Furthercaseofprosecutionisthat
deceasedChandrashekharPrasadandinjuredShyamNarayan
YadavweretakentosadarhospitalbysameTempo,where,
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
4/51
ShyamNarayanYadavwasundertreatment,andShyam
NarayanYadavdisclosedthenamesofaccused-appellantsin
presenceofSatyadeoRam(PW11).BhrigurashanPatel(PW10)
afterbringingtheinjuredtohospitalwenttothepartyofficeto
informtheincident.Hehasalsoallegedthattheoccurrencetook
placeundertheconspiracyoflocalM.P.SyedSahabuddin.
4.Onthebasisoftheaforesaidfardbeyan,NagarPolice
StationCaseNo.54/1997wasregisteredunderSections302,
Section307,Section120BandSection34oftheIndianPenalCodeagainstthe
appellantsofalltheaboveappealsandagainstRustamMianand
Riazuddin.LateronShyamNarayanYadavalsosuccumbedto
hisinjuries.
5.Lateronvidenotificationdated28.07.1997oftheState
Government(Ext.9)andalsobynotificationdated31.07.1997
(Ext.9/1)C.B.I.wasentrustedwiththeinvestigationofthe
case.Accordingly,RC.2(S)/97-SCB-II/DLI(Ext.8)was
registeredagainsttheappellantsandotheraccusedpersons.
6.Postinvestigation,chargesheetwassubmittedbyC.B.I.
on30.05.1998againsttheaccusedpersonsincludingappellants
showingaccusedRustamAliandMd.Reyazuddinabsconding.
Cognizanceoftheoffencewastakenandthecasewas
committedtothecourtofSessions.
7.Chargeswereframedagainstalltheappellantsunder
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
5/51
Sections302/Section149,Section307,/149,120-Band34SectionoftheIndianPenal
CodeandSection27oftheArmsAct.
8.Itappearsthatco-accusedRustamKhanwasabsconding,
whowaslateronarrestedandwithrespecttohimanother
SessionsTriali.e.948/2001wasopenedandoneMd.
Reyazuddindied,assuch,theproceedingwasdroppedagainst
him.
9.DuringTrialaltogethertwentywitnesseswereexamined
onbehalfofprosecution.Theyare:
PW1-RafeekAhmadKhan,Sub-InspectorofTown
PoliceStation,whorecordedfardbeyan.
PW2-Dr.LakshmanPrasad,isthedoctor,who
conductedpostmortemexaminationonthedeadbodyof
deceasedChandrashekharPrasad,ShyamNarayanYadav
andalsotreatedtheinjuredMd.Alam(PW5)and
ChandraketuSingh(PW4).
PW3-Dr.BimalKumar,isthedoctor,whoexaminedthe
injuredBhrigurashanPatel(PW10).
PW4-ChandraketuSinghisoneoftheinjuredandfrom
hisevidence,itappearsthathewasthepasserbyandhe
receivedgunshotinjury,whilehewascomingfromthe
Court.
PW5-Md.AlamKhan,whohasalsoreceivedinjuriesin
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
6/51
theshootoutandwastreatedbyPW2.
PW6-RajbanshiBaitha,A.S.I.,whoclaimedthathe
reachedtheplaceofoccurrenceandsawtheaccused
personsfleeingawayonthathefiredandoneofthe
accusedhadalsoreceivedinjury.
PW7-IndraKumaristhedriverofTempoNo.B.R.-04-
A0087carryingthedeceasedandothers.
PW8-RameshSinghKushwahaistheinformantinthis
case,althoughhehadidentifiedhissignatureonthe
fardbeyanExt.1,however,heturnedhostile.
PW9-Md.Samsuddinhasalsobeendeclaredhostileby
theprosecutionandaccordingtotheF.I.R,PW8andPW9
hadbroughtthedeceasedandinjuredtothehospital.
PW10-BhrigurashanPatelisalsonamedintheF.I.Rand
heclaimedtobeeyewitnessofoccurrenceandalso
receivedinjury.Heisalsowitnessoftheinquestreportof
deceasedChandrashekharPrasad(Ext.20)preparedby
thepoliceat17.30hourson31.03.1997.
PW11-SatyadeoRam,thethenM.L.A.MairwaCPI
(ML)Party,andasperhisevidence,oninformation,he
reachedanddeceasedShyamNarayanYadavdisclosed
thenamesofassailantsincludingtheappellantstohimin
presenceofothers.
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
7/51
PW12-KaushalyaDevi,motherofdeceased
ChandrashekharPrasadasperherevidence,shereached
atthehospitaloninformation.
PW13-RamdeoRam,whowasalsoaccompanyingthe
deceasedatthetimeofoccurrence,althoughheturned
hostilebuthehadsupportedthefactumofoccurrence.
PW14-S.B.Sinha,istheDeputyS.P.ofC.B.I.andhe
identifiedandreproducedthatRC.2(S)/97-SCB-II/DLI
wasregisteredinhisofficeon07.081997andhehas
furtherstatedthattheaboveF.I.Rhasbeendrawnonthe
basisofSiwanTownP.S.CaseNo.54/1997andtheF.I.R
ofC.B.I.wasmarkedasExt.8andthenotificationissued
bytheBiharGovernmentandCentralGovernmentwere
markedasExt.9and9/1.
PW15-RamSagarRai,isthethenS.I.ofMairwaPolice
StationandhesthefirstI.O.wheninvestigationwas
conductedbytheBiharPolice.
P.W.16:RajdeepSinghRawat,wastheinspectorC.B.I.,
andhehasstartedtheinvestigationandnoticedPW8
RameshSinghKushwahaandPW15RamSagarRaiand
identifiedthenoticeasExt.10andsiteplanasExt.11.
PW17:NagNarayanSinghwastheDeputyS.P.Special
CrimeBranch,whotookovertheinvestigationofSiwan
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
8/51
TownP.S.CaseNo.54/1997on11.08.1997.
PW18:RashidAhmadKhan,theDistrictMagistrate,
Siwan,whohadapprovedthesanctionletterasExt.13.
PW19:K.NandkumarNayarwasaGovernment
employeeofC.P.W.D.andinhispresence,disclosureof
appellantDhruwSahhasbeenrecordedandthesamewas
markedasExt.14.
PW20:Y.HariKumarwastheC.B.I.Officer,whowas
theInvestigatingOfficerofthecase.
10.Onbehalfofthedefencealso,altogetherfourteen
witnesseshavebeenexaminedandtheevidenceofDW1
SubhashPrasadandDW14SumanPrasadisonthepointof
alibiofaccusedSheikhMunna,evidenceofDW2Rajeshwar
MishraandDW3BajrangiMishraisonthepointofalibiof
accuedMantuKhan@Mintu.EvidenceofDW4Bajrangi
Mishra,DW7AshokKumarDasandDW13Md.Noorisalso
onthepointofalibiofaccusedMantuKhan.DW11Vishwanath
SingandDW12isonthepointofalibiofappellantDhruvSao.
EvidenceofDW5SatyapalSrivastav@Dhiran,DW6Sanjay
Srivastav@Chhotan,DW8AmitKumar,DW9SubhashPrasad
GuptaandDW10DharmJaindisclosedthattheoccurrenceis
of31.03.1997butaccordingtotheirevidence,NepaliBhutias
hadfiredonthedateofoccurrence.
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
9/51
11.Thelearnedtrialcourtonconclusionoftrialhascometo
theconclusionthatthedeceasedwerekilledinacriminal
conspiracyhatchedupbytheappellantsandaccusedRustam
KhanandMd.Reyazuddinbyfiringandtheaccusedappellants
alsoattemptedtomurderChandrashekharPrasadandothers,on
which,BhrigurashanPatel,ChandraketuSinghandMd.Alam
Khanreceivedinjuriesandafterconsideringthesame,
convictedtheappellantsofalltheaboveappealsunderSections
302/Section149,Section307/Section149,Section120BandSection34oftheIndianPenalCodeand
Section27oftheArmsActandsentencedtheminthemanner
aforesaid.
12.Beingaggrievedbythesame,presentappealshavebeen
preferredseparatelybytheappellants.
13.While,assailingtheimpugnedjudgmentoflearnted
TrialCourt,themainthrustofargumentoflearnedsenior
counselSurendraSingh,appearingonbehalfoftheappellantsin
CriminalAppeal(DB)No.325/12andCriminalAppeal(DB)
No.437/12,whichhasalsobeenadoptedbyMr.AjayKumar
Thakur,learnedcounselappearingonbehalfofappellantsin
CriminalAppeal(DB)No.435/12isthatinthiscaseinformant
RameshSinghKushwaha(PW8)andMd.Samsuddin(PW9),
whobroughtthedeceasedtoSadarhospitalwithinformanthave
beendeclaredhostileandPW4(ChandraketuSingh),PW5(Md.
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
10/51
AlamKhan),PW6(RajbanshiBaitha),PW7(IndraKumar)and
PW13(RamdeoRam)havenotnamedtheappellantsorany
accusedpersonsandfurtherPW11(SatyadeoRam)andPW12
(KaushalyaDevi)arenottheeyewitnessesoftheoccurrence.
Assuch,thewholecaserestsontheevidenceofPW10
(BhrigurashanPatel)andsocalledoraldyingdeclarationof
deceasedShyamNarayanYadavbutsofarpresenceofPW10
(BhrigurashanPatel)isconcerned,asperinjuryreportofPW10
(BhrigurashanPatel)(Ext6/1)hispresenceattheplaceof
occurrenceoratSadarhospital,isdoubtful.Drawingthe
attentionofthiscourttowardstheevidenceofPW10
(BhrigurashanPatel),ithasbeenarguedthathisevidenceisself
contradictoryashehasstatedinhisevidenceinchiefthathe
receivedinjuryinhisbackbutinhiscross-examination,this
witnesshasstatedthatthebulletcrossedtouchinghisbody.
FurthersubmissionisthatPW10(BhrigurashanPatel)ishighly
interestedwitness,ashewasapartyworkerofCPI(ML),as
such,convictionoftheappellantsonthesolitaryevidenceof
PW10(BhrigurashanPatel),whoseevidencesuffersfrom
discrepanciesandappearstobeaninterestedwitness,cannotbe
basedunlessitiscorroboratedbyotherevidence.Insupportof
hiscontention,learnedcounselsfortheappellantsreliedupona
decisionofHon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofShivaji
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
11/51
SectionSahebraoBobadeAnr.v.TheStateofMaharashtra
reportedin[1973AIR2622]aswellasonthedecisioninthe
caseofSectionAnilPhukanv.StateofAssamreportedin[AIR1993
SC1462].Further,inspiteofoccurrencebeingtakenplacina
crowdedplaceinbroaddaylight,thereisnoindependent
witnessoftheoccurrence.
14.Contentionoflearnedcounselsfortheappellantssofar
oraldyingdeclarationofdeceasedShyamNarayanYadav
beforethePW11(SatyadeoRam)isconcernedisthatthesame
alsodoesnotappeartobereliableandtrustworthyinthe
backgroundofevidenceofPW11(SatyadeoRam)thattheoral
dyingdeclarationwasmadeinpresenceofdarogaandevidence
ofPW10(BhrigurashanPatel)thatOfficerIn-chargeofTown
PoliceStationwasrecordingtheoraldyingdeclarationof
ShyamNarayanYadavbutneithertheOfficerIn-charge(PW1),
authoroffardbeyannoranyotherpolicewitnesseshavestated
so.Ontheotherhand,evidenceofPW5(Md.AlamKhan)inhis
cross-examinationdisclosedthathesawShyamNarayanYadav
inunconsciousconditioninhospital.Advancingtheir
arguments,learnedcounselsfortheappellantshavealso
submittedthatasperevidenceofPW3,whoconducted
postmortemexaminationofdeceasedShyamNarayanYadav
thathewasnotinafitstateofmindtospeakassuch,thestory
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
12/51
oforaldyingdeclarationbythedeceasedShyamNarayanYadav
isalsoundercloudandnoreliancecanbeplacedonsucha
manufacturedclaimoforaldyingdeclaration.Reliancehasbeen
placedonadecisionofHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseof
UmakantandAnr.vStateofChhatisgarhreportedin[AIR
2014SC2943]wherein,Hon’bleSupremeCourthaslaid
downcertainprinciplesaboutadmissibilityoforaldying
declaration.Furthercontentionisthatthereisnocertification
bythedoctorastowhetherShyamNarayanYadavwasinafit
stateofmind.
15.Counteringthesubmission,Mr.BipinKumarSinha,
learnedstandingcounselappearingonbehalfofC.B.I.has
defendedtheimpugnedjudgmentandsubmittedthatPW10
(BhrigurashanPatel)isaninjuredwitnessandhispresenceat
theplaceofoccurrenceaswellasattheSadarhospitalcannot
bedoubtedmerelyonthegroundthatheisaninterestedwitness
andhisevidencesuffersfromsomediscrepancies.Relyingon
decisionsofHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofSectionPirara
SinghandOthersv.StateofPunjabreportedin[AIR1977
SC2274]aswellasinthecaseofSeemonaliasSectionVeeranamv.
StatethroughInspectorofPolicereportedin[2005CrLJ
2618(SC)]hiscontentionisthattheevidenceofPW10
(BhrigurashanPatel)supportstheprosecutioncasesofar
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
13/51
manneraswellasidentificationofaccusedpersonandothers
areconcernedandthesamefoundcorroborationfromthe
fardbeyan(Ext.1)recordedimmediatelyaftertheoccurrence,
whichshowsthepresenceofPW10atSadarHospital.
Furthermore,evidenceofPW4andPW5,whoareindependent
witnessesandthoughPW8andPW13havebeendeclared
hostilebuttheirevidencesupportsthefactumofoccurrence
relyingonthesettledlawthatmerelybecausewitnessesturned
hostile,theirevidencecannotbediscardedintotoandciteda
decisionofHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofKhujialias
SectionSurendraTiwarivs.StateofMadhyaPradeshreportedin
[1991Cr.LawJournal2653(SC)]aswellasonthedecisionin
thecaseofSectionArjunandAnr.v.StateofChattisgarhreportedin
AIR(2017)3SCC247.Furthersubmissionoflearnedcounsel
appearingonbehalfofC.B.I.isthateventhedefencewitnesses
havesupportedthefactumofoccurrencethoughtheyhave
developedastorythatfiringwasmadebyNepaliBhutias.
16.Ithasalsobeencontendedbylearnedcounselappearing
onbehalfofC.B.I.isthatsofaroraldyingdeclarationof
deceasedShyamNarayanYadavisconcerned,theevidenceof
PW11(SatyadeoRam)showsthatdeceasedShyamNarayan
Yadavdisclosedhimthenamesofappellantsandotheraccused
personsasassailantsandevidenceofPW10(Bhrigurashan
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
14/51
Patel)corroboratesthesame.DoctorLaxmanPrasad(PW2),
whoconductedpostmortemexaminationofthedeceasedShyam
NarayanYadavnorpolicewitnesseshavebeencross-examined
onthepointoforaldyingdeclarationofShyamNarayanYadav
giventoPW11(SatyadeoRam)noranysuggestionwasgivento
doctorseitherPW3orPW2thatthedeceasedShyamNarayan
Yadavwasnotinafitstateofmind,assuch,defenceis
precludedfromtakingbenefitofthesamerelyingupona
decisionofHon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofSectionGianChand
Othersv.StateofHaryanareportedin[2013(4)PLJRSC7].
ContentionisalsothattheevidenceofPW11(SatyadeoRam)
isalsoadmissibleunderSection6ofIndianEvidenceActand
thustheprosecutioncaseoforaldyingdeclarationofdeceased
ShyamNarayanYadavappearstobegenuineandtrustworthy.
17.Inthebackgroundoftheargumentsoftherivalparties
andonclosescrutinyofmaterialsavailableonrecord,itappears
thatfardbeyan(Ext.1)wasrecordedbyPW1onthestatement
ofPW8RameshSinghKushwahaat17.00hourson31.03.1997
andthatdisclosedthatdeceasedalongwithBhrigurashanPatel
(PW10)andRamdeoRam(PW13)wereoncampaignforBihar
BandhonthetempoandreachedneartheJ.P.Chowkat4.00
P.M.assoonastheyreached,appellantsandotheraccused
RustamMianandReyazuddinstartedindiscriminatefiringdue
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
15/51
towhich,ChandrashekharPrasaddiedonspotandShyam
NarayanYadavreceivedinjuriesandBhrigurashanPatelhas
alsoreceivedinjuriesandintheoccurrence,passersbyalso
receivedinjuriesandShyamNarayanYadavdisclosedthe
namesofappellantsandotheraccusedpersonsbeforeRamesh
SinghKushwaha(PW8)andalsobeforeSatyadeoRam(PW11)
andBhrigurashanPatel(PW10)afterreachingthehospital,left
forpartyofficeforgivinginformationoftheoccurrence.
18.PW8RameshSinghKushwahaistheinformantinthis
caseandhisevidencedisclosedthattheoccurrenceisof31st
March1997,hewaswaitingforvehicleandtherewasahulla
thatMALEleaderswerekilledatJ.P.Chowk,hecametothe
placeofoccurrencebutnonewasthere,thereafter,hewentto
theSadarhospitalandsawChandrashekhardeadandShyam
NarayanYadavininjuredconditionlateronhealsodied.He
identifiedhissignatureasonfardbeyan(Ext.1).Thiswitness
hasbeendeclaredhostileandhisattentionhasbeendrawn
towardsthestatementmadebeforetheC.B.I.andalsoaboutthe
fardbeyanbuthedeniedthesame.
19.PW1RafikAhmadKhan,isthethenOfficerIn-chargeof
TownPoliceStation,Siwanandaccordingtohim,hehas
recordedthestatementofRameshSinghKushwaha(PW8)and
hehadcategoricallystatedthatoccurrenceisof31.03.1997and
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
16/51
at17.00hours,herecordedthestatementofRameshSingh
Kushwaha(PW8)andhandedoverthesameatthepolice
station.OnhisstatementfardbeyanwasprovedasExt.1andhe
hasalsoidentifiedsignatureofA.S.I.K.L.Dasonthe
endorsementasExt.2.Evidenceofthiswitnessincross-
exanimationdisclosedthatinformanthasgothisstatement
recordedinpresenceofdoctorsbuthehasnotaskedthedoctors
tocome,whilerecordingthestatement.Suggestionhasalso
beengiventohimthatoccurrencedidnottakeplaceon
31.03.1997buton01.04.1997buthedeniedthesame.
Evidenceofthiswitness,onrecall,furtherdisclosedthathe
preparedthreeinquestreportsoneofChandrashekharPrasad,
secondofBhutaliMianandthirdofShyamNarayanyadav,
whichhavebeenmarkedasExt.20toExt.20/2andhiscross-
examinationdisclosedthatthoseinquestreportswereprepared
at17.39hours,18.25hoursand18.45hoursrespectively.
FromperusalofExt.20to20/2,itappearsthatalltheinquest
reportswerepreparedon31.03.1997.
20.EvidenceofPW4ChandraketuSinghdisclosedthaton
31.03.1997at4.00P.M.,hereceivedfirearminjuryonhisright
leg,whilehewascomingfromthecourtandhisevidence
furtherdisclosedthatcrowdwascomingandheheardthesound
offiringandafterreceivingtheinjury,hewastakentoSadar
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
17/51
hospitalformedicalcheckups.Evidenceofthiswitnessin
cross-examinationdisclosedthatinthehospital,hecameto
knowthattwoCPI(ML)leadersChandrashekharPrasadand
ShyamNarayanYadavwerekilled.
21.EvidenceofPW5Md.AlamKhandisclosedthatat4.00
P.M.,hereceivedgunshotinjuryinhishandandafterten
minutes,policearrivedandtakenhimtohospital.Hiscross-
examinationalsodisclosedthatoneoftheinjureddiedand
anotherwasinunconsciouscondition.
22.EvidenceofPW6RajbanshiBaitha,whowasA.S.I.of
policedisclosedthaton31.03.1997,hehadgonetothecourt
andwhilehewascomingfromthecourtonmotorcycle,hesaw
thecrowdattheJ.P.Chowkandcametoknowthattherewas
firingandthemiscreantshavefledtowardstheRegistryOffice,
then,hechasedthemforabout500yardsandfiredonthem.
23.PW7IndraKumarwasthedriverofthetempoandhis
evidencealsodisclosedthathewascomingalongwith
ChandrashekharPrasadandShyamNarayanYadavalongwith
twomorepersonsandwhentheyreachedneartheJ.P.Chowk,
firingstartedandhefledaway.Hisevidencealsodisclosedthat
ChandrashekharPrasadandShyamNarayanYadavreceived
injuriesandhehadtakenthemtohospital.Thiswitnesshas
beencross-examinedandevenhiscross-examinationdisclosed
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
18/51
thattherewasindiscriminatefiring.
24.EvidenceofPW10BhrigurashanPateldisclosedthat
theywerecampaigningforthesuccessofBiharBandhand
conductedseveralmeetingbetween10.00A.M.to2.00P.M.His
evidencefurtherdisclosedthatwhentheyproceededtowardsthe
J.P.ChowkandassoonastheygotdownfromtheTempoand
themeetingwasabouttostart,fivepersons,namely,Mantu
Khan,MunnaKhan,RustamKhan,ReyazuddinandDhruvSao
cameandstartedindiscriminatefiring,inwhich,healso
receivedgunshotinjuryonhisbackandShyamNarayanYadav
andChandrashekharPrasadgotbadlyinjuredandtherewas
stampede.Heidentifiedtheaccused-appellantsinthedock.
HisevidencefurtherdisclosedthatRameshSinghKushwaha
(PW8)andSamsuddin(PW9)broughtthemtothehospital,
where,theyweretreated.PW8hasgottheF.I.Rregistered.His
evidencealsodisclosedthatDarogaofTownPoliceStationwas
recordingthestatementofShyamNarayanYadavandSatyadeo
Ram,M.L.A.(PW11),RameshSinghKushwaha(PW8)and
Samsuddin(PW9)werepresentthere.Accordingtohim,the
occurrencetookplacebetween4.00to4.30P.M.Thiswitness
hasbeencross-examinedatlengthandeveninhiscross-
examination,inpara-2hisevidencedisclosedthathehadnot
handedovertheMictopolice,ashewashimselfinjuredand
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
19/51
wasbroughttotheSadarhospitalandwithin10minutes,police
arrived.Hisevidenceinpara-3ofcrossexamination,also
disclosedthatthebulletcrossedtouchinghisbodyandtherewas
markontheKurtaandGanjiandtherewasbleedingalsobutthe
policehasnotseizedtheKurtaandGanjiandthefiringhithis
ribarea.Thiswitnesshasbeencrossexaminedatlength,
however,thereisnothingtodoubthispresenceattheplaceof
occurrenceorattheSadarhospital.Hisattentionwasdrawn
towardsthestatementmadebeforethepolicetoshowsome
omissionandcontradictionbutthoseomissionandcontradiction
appearstobeminor.Onrecall,evidenceofthiswitnessalso
disclosedthatalltheappellantsarethemenofSyedSahabuddin
andonhisdirection,theyhavecommittedtheoccurrenceandall
theappellantsandaccusedpersonsweremeetingSahabudinin
jailandSahabuddingottheoccurrencecommittedashisparty
wasgainingpopularity.
25.PW11SatyadeoRamisthethen,M.L.A.MairwaC.P.I.
(ML)andhisevidencealsodisclosedthaton31.03.1997,he
receivedinformationat4.30P.M.thatC.P.I(ML)leaderswere
shotatJ.P.Chowkandonthatinformation,hereachedJ.P.
Chowk,where,hewasinformedthatRameshSinghKushwaha
(PW8),Samsuddin(PW9)andRamdeoRam(PW13)have
takenthemtohospital.Thereafter,hereachedthehospitaland
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
20/51
sawthedeadbodyofChandrashekharPrasadandShyam
NarayanYadavininjuredconditionandseeinghim,Shyam
NarayanYadavutteredsomething.Bythattime,DarogaJialso
reachedthereandShyamNarayanYadavdisclosedthatDhruv
Sao,MunnaKhan,Reyazuddin,RustamandMantuKhanhad
fired.EvidenceofPW11alsodisclosedthatRameshSingh
Kushwaha(PW8)wasgivingstatementbeforethepolice,which
wasreadoverandexplainedtohim.Thereafter,heputhis
signature.ThiswitnesshadidentifiedDhruvSao,MantuKhan
andclaimedtohaveidentifiedotheraccusedpersons.His
evidencealsodisclosedthatoneBhutaliMianalsodied.This
witnesshasalsobeencross-examinedatlengthbutthecross-
examinationwasdirectedonlytoshowthathewaspartyworker
ofC.P.I.(ML)andaninterestedwitness.However,no
suggestionwasgiventhatShyamNarayanYadavwasnotina
fitstateofmindandhasnotdisclosedanything.
26.PW12KaushalyaDeviwasthemotherof
ChandrashekharPrasadandherevidencedisclosedthat
Sahabuddinhasthreatenedhersontwicetoleavehiswayand
twotothreedaysprior,hismenhasalsothreatenedher.Her
evidencealsodisclosedthepresenceofRameshSingh
Kushwaha(PW8).
27.PW13RamdeoRamisalsoapartyworkerofC.P.I.(ML)
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
21/51
andhisevidencedisclosedthatcampaigningwasgoingonfor
BiharBandhon02.04.1997andon31.03.1997,hehadgonefor
campaigningalongwithShyamNarayanYadavand
ChandrashekharPrasadandBhrigurashanPatelalsomethim
and,thereafter,theyhadtakenlunchat2.30P.M.andproceeded
forcampaigningandBhrigurashanPatelwasalsothereand
ChandrashekharPrasadansShyamNarayanYadavwerekilled,
however,heclaimsthathewasnotpresentattheplaceof
occurrence.Hisevidencealsodisclosedthathehadgivenblood
toShyamNarayanYadavat5.30P.M.on31.03.1997and
ShyamNarayanYadavdiedafter2to3minutes.Thiswitness
hasnotsupportedtheprosecutioncasefurtherandhadbeen
declaredhostile.
28.PW2Dr.LakshmanPrasadisthedoctor,whohas
conductedthepostmortemexaminationonthedeadbodyof
deceasedChandrashekharPrasadon31.03.1997at5.50P.M.
disclosedthathehadfoundgunshotinjuryonthepersonofthe
deceasedandhefurtherstatedthatthecauseofdeathisdueto
hemorrhageandshockduetotheinjurycausedbyfirearm.He
provedthepostmortemreportofdeceasedChanrashekhar
PrasadasExt.3.Hisevidencefurtherdisclosedthatonsame
dayat7.20P.M.,heconductedpostmortemexaminationonthe
deadbodyofShyamNarayanYadavandfoundtheinjurieson
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
22/51
thepersonofthedeceasedShyamNarayanYadav.Accordingto
him,thecauseofdeathwashemorrhageandshockduetoabove
injurycausedbyfirearm.Thiswitnesshasprovedthe
postmortemreportofdeceasedShyamNarayanYadavasExt.
3/1andhehasexaminedMd.AlamPW5onthesamedayat
5.15P.M.andfoundoneinjuryoffirearmandhisinjuryreport
wasprovedbyhimasExt.4.Similarly,healsoexaminedPW4
ChandraketuSinghonthesamedayat5.20P.M.andfoundone
firearminjuryandheprovedhisinjuryreportasExt.4/1.This
witnesshasbeencross-examinedandhisevidenceincross-
examinationdisclosedthatdeceasedChandrashekharPrasadhad
onlyonegunshotinjury,whereas,deceasedShyamNarayan
Yadavhadreceivedthreegunshotinjuriesandiftherewillbe
shock,therewillbeimmediatehemorrhage,woundsof
lacerationoflungswillbeimmediatelyfatalfromprofuse
bleeding.CrossexaminationofPW2alsodisclosedthaton
31.03.1997,SurgeonondutywasdoctorBimalKumar,whois
atpresentpostedinthedistrictofGopalganjandS.O.D.ismade
firstentrybutinthisintimationreport,thereisnothingwritten
bythedoctorBimalKumar.
29.PW3istheDoctorBimalKumarandasperhisevidence,
heinformedaboutthedeathofShyamNarayanYadavtothe
OfficerIn-chargeandheprovedtheletterinhiswritingand
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
23/51
signatureasExt.6.Hisevidencedisclosedthatheexamined
BhrigurashanPatel(PW10)on31.03.1997andheagain
appearedon01.04.1997at10.30A.M.andonexaminationhe
found,circularwound1C.M.diameterwithblackmarginonthe
leftlateralchestofthelevelof6thinnermuscularspace.X-ray
wasadvisedbutthereportofX-raywasnotsubmitted.This
witnesshasbeencross-examinedandhehadstatedthatwhoever
getsadmittedinthehospital,bedheadticketisprepared.
30.PW16RajdeepSinghRawatwasoneoftheInvestigating
Officersinthiscaseandasperhisevidence,hehadissued
noticetoPW8(RameshSinghKushwaha)asperdirectionofthe
SuperintendentofPoliceandonnoticePW8(RameshSingh
Kushwaha)appearedbeforehim.Thiswitnesshasprovedthe
noticeasExt.10.Evidenceofthiswitnessalsodisclosedthat
PW8(RameshSinghKushwaha)hadadmittedthathegotthe
fardbeyanrecorded(thoughwithobjection)andhehasnot
statedbeforehimthathissignaturewasobtainedonaplain
paper.Thereafter,healongwithPW8(RameshSingh
Kushwaha)cametoJ.P.Chowkandprepareddraftplani.e.site
plan(Ext.11).Hisevidencefurtherdisclosedthatherecorded
thestatementofPW8(RameshSinghKushwaha)andasper
him,hehassupportedtheoccurrenceandPW13(RamdeoRam)
hasalsosupportedtheoccurrencebeforehim.Hisevidence
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
24/51
disclosedthatwitnessSamsuddinAnsari(PW9)hadalso
supportedthemannerandfactumofoccurrencebeforehim.
31.Onclosescrutinyoftheevidenceofwitnessesaswellas
othermaterialsasdiscussedabove,itappearsthatthefardbeyan
hasbeenrecordedat5P.M.immediatelyaftertheoccurrence,in
which,thenamesofallaccusedpersonshasbeenmentioned.It
hasalsobeenmentionedthatdeceasedShyamNarayanYadav
madeoraldyingdeclarationabouttheaccusedpersonsand
PW10(BhrigurashanPatel)wasalsopresentthereandhehad
alsoreceivedinjuries.Fardbeyanhasbeenbroughtonrecordas
Ext.1,whichwasprovedbyitsauthor(PW1).Nodoubt,PW8
(RameshSinghKushwaha),whowastheinformantofthecase,
wasdeclaredhostilebuthehasprovedhissignatureonthe
fardbeyanasExt.2/1andhisevidencedisclosedthatinthe
occurrence,twoMALEleaderswerekilledatJ.P.Chowkand
theyweretakentohospitalandassuch,theaboveevidence
supportsthefactumofoccurrence.PW8hasbeendeclared
hostileandhehasnotsupportedtheprosecutioncaseintotobut
thefactremainsthatPW1hasstatedthatthesamewasrecorded
onstatementofPW8andthesamewasbroughtonrecordas
Ext.1.Inthepresentcase,asdiscussedabove,fardbeyan
(Ext.1)hasbeenlodgedimmediatelyaftertheoccurrenceand
filingofpromptF.I.Rrulesoutthepossibilityofmanipulation
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
25/51
andadditioninF.I.R.Hon’bleApexCourthasalsoconsidered
thisaspectinadecisioninthecaseofSectionRavinderKumarv.
StateofPunjabreportedinAIR2001(SC)3570andobserved
that”ofcourse,apromptandimmediatelodgingofF.I.R.isthe
idealasthatwouldgivetheprosecutionatwinadvantagefirstis
thatitaffordscommencingoftheinvestigationwithoutanytime
lapse.Secondisthatitexpelstheopportunityforanypossible
concoctionofafalseversion”.
32.InthiscasePW8andPW9,whoaresaidtohavebrought
thedeceasedandotherstohospitalhadbeendeclaredhostile
andattentionofPW8hasbeendrawntowardsthestatement
madebeforetheC.B.I.inpara-2ofhiscross-examinationand
asuggestionhasalsobeengiventohimandonthebasisof
statementinthehospital,F.I.R.waslodgedandheputsignature
abouthedeniedthesame.EvidenceofPW16(RajdeepSingh
Rawat),whohasalsoconductedinvestigationonbehalfof
C.B.I.disclosedthatheissuednoticetoPW8andonnotice
PW8appearedandthiswitnessrecordedhisstatementandhe
hadsupportedtheprosecutioncase,whichwillappearfrompara
-1ofhisevidence.Similarly,evidenceofPW16alsodisclosed
thathehasrecordedthestatementofPW9(Md.Samsuddin)and
hehadalsosupportedtheprosecutioncaseandtheevidenceof
PW16alsodisclosedthatPW13(RamdeoRam)hadsupported
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
26/51
thecaseofprosecution.Assuch,itisevidentthatPW8,PW9
andPW13hadtriedtoconcealthematerialtruthwiththe
pursposeofshieldingandprotectingtheappellants,maybedue
tofearortheymighthavebeengainedoverandforthatthe
appellantswillnotbeallowedtogetanybenefit.Sofar
evidenceofhostilewitnessesareconcerned,Hon’bleApex
CourtinthecaseofKhujialiasSurendraTiwari(supra)and
ArjunandAnr.vs.StateofChhatisgarh(supra)hasheldthat
evidenceofsuchwitnessescannotbetreatedaseffacedor
washedofftherecordaltogetherbutthesamecanbeacceptedto
theextenthisversionisfoundtobedependableonacareful
scrutinythereof.InthecaseofSectionHemudanNanbhaGandhivs.
StateofGujaratreportedin2019CRIL.J.736(Supreme
Court),Hon’bleApexCourtconsideringthejudgmentof
Hon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofSectionStatevs.SanjivNanda
reportedin2012(8)SCC450,hasobservedthat”ifawitness
becomeshostiletosubvertthejudicialprocess,thecourtshall
notstandasamutespectatorandeveryeffortshouldbemade
tobringhomethetruth.Criminaljusticesystemcannotbe
overturnedbythosegulliblewitnesseswhoactunderpressure,
inducementorintimidation.Further,Section193IPCimposes
punishmentforgivingfalseevidencebutisseldominvoked”
andfurtherheldinpara9and10ofitsjudgment,whichreadsas
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
27/51
follows:-
“9.Acriminaltrialisbutaquestfortruth.
Thenatureofinquiryandevidencerequired
willdependonthefactsofeachcase.The
presumptionofinnocencewillhavetobe
balancedwiththerightsofthevictim,and
aboveallthesocietalinterestfor
preservationoftheruleoflaw.Neitherthe
accusednorthevictimcanbepermittedto
subvertacriminaltrialbystatingfalsehood
andresorttocontrivances,soastomakeit
thetheatreoftheabsurd.Dispensationof
justiceinacriminaltrialisaseriousmatter
andcannotbeallowedtobecomeamockery
bysimplyallowingprimeprosecution
witnessestoturnhostileasagroundfor
acquittal,asobservedinSectionZahiraHabibullah
Sheikhvs.StateofGujarat,(2006)3SCC
374andSectionMahilaVinodKumarivs.Stateof
MadhyaPradesh,(2008)8SCC34.Ifthe
medicalevidencehadnotconfirmedsexual
assaultontheprosecutrix,theT.I.P.and
identificationthereinweredoubtful,
corroborativeevidencewasnotavailable,
entirelydifferentconsiderationsmayhave
arisen.
10.Itwouldindeedbeatravestyofjusticein
thepeculiarfactsofthepresentcaseifthe
appellantweretobeacquittedmerely
becausetheprosecutrixturnedhostileand
failedtoidentifytheappellantinthedock,in
viewoftheotheroverwhelmingevidence
available.SectionInIqbalvs.StateofU.P.,2015(6)
SCC623,itwasobservedasfollows:
“15.Evidenceofidentificationofthe
miscreantsinthetestidentification
paradeisnotasubstantiveevidence.
Convictioncannotbebasedsolelyon
theidentityofthedacoitsbythe
witnessesinthetestidentification
parade.Theprosecutionhastoadduce
substantiveevidencebyestablishing
incriminatingevidenceconnectingthe
accusedwiththecrime,likerecovery
ofarticleswhicharethesubjectmatter
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
28/51ofdacoityandtheallegedweapons
usedinthecommissionofthe
offence.”
33.Fromthediscussionsmadeabove,itappearsthatPW10
waspresentattheplaceofoccurrenceandheisaninjured
witness.Appellantshavedoubtedthepresenceofthiswitnessat
theplaceofoccurrencemainlyrelyingontheevidenceofPW3
Dr.BimalKumar,however,evidenceofPW3disclosedthathe
examinedPW10on31.03.1997andalsoon01.04.1997at
10.30.A.M.andfound”circularwound1cmdiameterwith
blackmarginontheleftlateralchestofthelevelof6thinner
muscularspace.X-raywasadvised”andthiswitnesshasnot
beencross-examinednoranysuggestionwasgiventhathehad
notexaminedPW10(BhrigurashanPatel)on31.03.1997andhe
haspreparedfalseinjuryreport.Ithasalsobeenarguedon
behalfoftheappellantsthattheevidenceofPW10
(BhrigurashanPatel)inhischiefshowsthathereceivedinjury
onhisback,whereas,inthecross-examination,hehasstated
otherwiseanddoctorfoundinjuryonchestbuttomyopinion,
theseareminordiscrepancies,ontheotherhand,thedoctorhas
foundfirearminjuryonhisperson,whichsupportsthe
prosecutioncase.InthecaseofSectionMukeshandAnr.v.Statefor
NCTofDelhiandOthersreportedin[2017CRIL.J.4365],
Hon’bleApexCourthasconsideredtheevidenceofinjured
witness,consideringseveraljudgmentofHon’bleApexCourt
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
29/51
andobservedthat”Theevidenceofaninjuredwitnessisentitled
toagreaterweightandthetestimonyofsuchawitnessis
consideredtobebeyondreproachandreliable.Firm,cogent
andconvincinggroundisrequiredtodiscardtheevidenceofan
injuredwitness.Itistobekeptinmindthattheevidentiary
valueofaninjuredwitnesscarriesgreatweight.”
34.FurtherHon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofSectionStateof
Maharashtravs.TulshiramBhanudasKamblereportedin
[AIR2007SC3042]hasobservedthattheevidenceofaneye
witness,whoisalsoaninjuredwitness,cannotbedoubted
merelyonthegroundthatheisinimicaltotherespondentsand
heldinparagraph29to31,whichreadasfollows:-
29.Eachofthereasoningassignedbythe
HighCourt,inouropinion,iscontraryto
thewell-settledlegalprinciple.The
witnessesexaminedonbehalfofthe
prosecution,apartfrombeingeye-witnesses,
wereinjuredwitnesses.Theirpresenceatthe
placeofoccurrence,therefore,cannotbe
doubted.Onlybecausetheywereinimicalto
therespondents,thesamebyitselfcannotbe
agroundtodiscardtheirevidences.
Althoughinacceptingthesame,some
amountofcautionisrequiredtobe
maintained.
35.Sofarsubmissionoflearnedcounselsfortheappellants
thattherearesomediscrepanciesintheevidenceofPW10is
concerned,thesameappearstobeverytrivialandthatisbound
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
30/51
tooccurintheevidenceofawitnessdeposingmuchafterthe
occurrence.Hon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofSectionSmt.Shamimv.
State(GNCTofDelhi)reportedin2019CRI.L.J.732
(SupremeCourt)hasconsideredthisaspectofthematterin
para12ofitsjudgment,whichreadsthus:
“12.Whileappreciatingtheevidenceofa
witness,theapproachmustbewhetherthe
evidenceofthewitnessreadasawhole
inspiresconfidence.Oncethatimpressionis
formed,itisundoubtedlynecessaryforthe
courttoscrutinisetheevidencemore
particularlykeepinginviewthedeficiencies,
drawbacksandinfirmitiespointedoutinthe
evidenceasawholeandevaluatethemto
findoutwhetheritisagainstthegeneral
tenoroftheevidenceandwhethertheearlier
evaluationoftheevidenceisshakenasto
renderitunworthyofbelief.Minor
discrepanciesontrivialmattersnottouching
thecoreofthecase,hypertechnicalapproach
bytakingsentencestornoutofcontexthere
ortherefromtheevidence,attaching
importancetosometechnicalerrorwithout
goingtotherootofthematterwouldnot
ordinarilypermitrejectionoftheevidenceas
awhole.Minoromissionsinthepolice
statementsareneverconsideredtobefatal”.
36.FurtherHon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofSectionSohrabandAnr.
vs.StateofM.P.reportedinAIR1992(SC)220,Hon’ble
ApexCourthasalsoconsideredtheevidenceofinjured
witnessesandheldthatmerelybecausetherehavebeen
discrepanciesandcontradictionsintheevidenceofsomeorall
thewitnesses,thesamedoesnotmeanthatentireevidenceof
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
31/51
prosecutionhastobediscarded.Itisonlyafterexercising
cautionandcareshiftingtheevidencetoseparatethetruth
fromuntruth,exaggeration,embellishmentandimprovement,
theCourthadcometotheconclusionthatwhatcouldbe
acceptedimplicatedtheappellantsandconvictedthemasthe
Courthasheldthatfalsusinunofalsusinomnibus’.isnota
soundruleforthereasonthathardlyanyonecomesacross
witnesswhoseevidencedoesnotcontainagrainofuntruthor
atanyerasomeexaggerationorembellishment.
37.Hon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofSectionRameshandothers
v.StateofHaryanareportedin2017CRIL.J.352(Supreme
Court)hasalsoobservedthisfactinpara35and36ofthe
judgment,whichreadsasfollows:-
“35.Wefindthatitisbecomingacommon
phenomenon,almostaregularfeature,thatin
criminalcaseswitnessesturnhostile.There
couldbevariousreasonsforthisbehaviour
orattitudeofthewitnesses.Itispossiblethat
whenthestatementsofsuchwitnesseswere
recordedunderSection161oftheCodeof
CriminalProcedure,1973bythepolice
duringinvestigation,theInvestigating
Officerforcedthemtomakesuchstatements
and,therefore,theyresiledtherefromwhile
deposingintheCourtandjustifiablyso.
However,thisisnolongerthereasoninmost
ofthecases.Thistrendofwitnessesturning
hostileisduetovariousotherfactors.Itmay
befearofdeposingagainstthe
accused/delinquentorpoliticalpressureor
pressureofotherfamilymembersorother
suchsociologicalfactors.Itisalsopossible
thatwitnessesarecorruptedwithmonetary
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
32/51
considerations.
36.Insomeofthejudgmentsinpastfew
years,thisCourthascommenteduponsuch
peculiarbehaviourofwitnessesturning
hostileandwewouldliketoquotefromfew
suchjudgments.SectionInKrishnaMochiv.Stateof
Bihar,thisCourtobservedasunder:
“31.Itismatterofcommon
experiencethatinrecenttimesthere
hasbeensharpdeclineofethical
valuesinpubliclifeevenindeveloped
countriesmuchlessdevelopingone,
likeours,wheretheratioofdeclineis
higher.Eveninordinarycases,
witnessesarenotinclinedtodeposeor
theirevidenceisnotfoundtobe
crediblebycourtsformanifold
reasons.Oneofthereasonsmaybe
thattheydonothavecourageto
deposeagainstanaccusedbecauseof
threatstotheirlife,moresowhenthe
offendersarehabitualcriminalsor
high-upsintheGovernmentorclose
topowers,whichmaybepolitical,
economicorotherpowersincluding
musclepower.
38.Consideringtheabovesettledprinciple,onclosescrutiny
ofevidence,itappearsthatPW10hassupportedtheprosecution
casesofarfactumofoccurrenceisconcernedandalsoidentified
theaccusedpersonsastheassailantsandasdiscussedabove,
thereisnothingtodoubthiscredibilityorhispresenceatthe
placeofoccurrence.Eveninfardbeyan(Ext.1),hispresence
hasbeenmentionedandfurtherhehadalsoreceivedinjuries
andthesameiscorroboratedbytheevidenceofPW3and,
hence,heappearstobewhollyreliablewitness.Apartfromthat
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
33/51
PW4andPW5aswellasPW7havesupportedthefactumof
occurrenceanddateofoccurrence.Nodoubt,PW8andPW13
haveturnedhostilebutonscrutinyofevidenceofPW8and
PW13,wefindthattheyhavesupportedthefactumof
occurrenceanddateandtimeofoccurrence.Evidenceavailable
onrecorddisclosedthatduetopopularityofdeceased
ChandrashekharPrasad,hehadbeenthreatenedearlierbylocal
M.P.and,thereafter,while,hewascampaigningforBiharBand,
inbroaddaylightinacrowdedchauraha,accusedpersons
includingappellantsmadeindiscriminatefiringkillinghimand
otherandalsocausinginjuriestoseveralothersandthesaidact
oftheaccusedpersons,mayputanyoneinfearandinsucha
situation,ifPW8,PW9andPW13turnedhostile,thiscanwell
bepresumedthatoutoffear,theyturnedhostile.Aswehave
discussedabove,itappearsthattheyhavesuppressedthe
materialfactsinordertoshieldorprotecttheaccusedpersons.
39.Anotherargumentoflearnedcounselsappearingon
behalfoftheappellantsisthatPW10(BhrigurashanPatel)isthe
solitaryeyewitnessoftheoccurrenceandhisevidencesuffers
fromdiscrepancies,assuch,noconvictioncanbebasedonhis
solitaryevidenceinabsenceofcorroboration.Inthecaseof
ShivajiSahebraoBobade(supra)ithasbeenobservedby
Hon’bleApexCourtthat”evenifthecaseagainsttheaccused
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
34/51
hangsontheevidenceofasingleeye-,witnessitmaybe
enoughtosustainthe,convictiongivensterlingtestimonyofa
competent,honestman,althoughasaruleofprudencecourts
callforcorroboration.Itisaplatitudetosaythatwitnesses
havetobeweighedandnotcountedsincequalitymatters
morethanquantityinhumanaffairs”.Further,inthecaseof
AnilPhukan(supra),ithasbeenheldbyHon’bleApexCourt
that”Convictioncanbebasedonthetestimonyofasingle
eye-witnessandthereisnoruleoflaworevidencewhich
saystothecontraryprovidedthesoleeyewitnesspassesthe
testofreliability.Solongasthesingleeye-witnessisa
whollyreliablewitnessthecourtshavenodifficultyin
basingconvictiononhistestimonyalone.However,where
thesingleeye-witnessisnotfoundtobeawhollyreliable
witness,inthesensethattherearesomecircumstances
whichmayshowthathecouldhaveaninterestinthe
prosecution,thenthecourtsgenerallyinsistuponsome
independentcorroborationofhistestimony,Inmaterial
particulars,beforerecordingconviction.Itisonlywhenthe
courtsfindthatthesingleeye-witnessisawhollyunreliable
witnessthathistestimonyisdiscardedintotoandnoamount
ofcorroborationcancurethatdefect”.InthecaseofPirara
Singh(supra),theHon’bleApexCourthasobservedthat
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
35/51
“evidenceofinterestedorinimicalwitnessesistobe
scrutinisedwithcarebutcannotberejectedmerelyonthe
groundofbeingapartisanevidence.Ifonaperusalofthe
evidencetheCourtissatisfiedthattheevidenceiscreditworthy
thereisnobarintheCourtrelyingonthesaidevidence”.
SimilarviewhasalsobeentakenbytheHon’bleApexCourtin
thecaseofSeemonaliasVeeranam(supra).
40.SofarnumberofwitnessestobeexaminedintheTrial,
Section134ofIndianEvidenceAct,providesthat;no
particularnumberofwitnessesshallinanycaseberequired
fortheproofofanyfact.Hon’bleApexCourtinthecaseof
SectionVadiveluThevarvsTheStateOfMadrasreportedin[1957
AIR614(SC)]hasalsoconsideredthesameandheldinpara14
and15,whichreadasfollows:-
14.Inviewoftheseconsiderations,we
havenohesitationinholdingthatthe
contentionthatinamurdercase,the
courtshouldinsistuponpluralityof
witnesses,ismuchtoobroadlystated.
Section134oftheIndianEvidence
Acthascategoricallylaiditdownthat
“noparticularnumberofwitnesses
shallinanycaseberequiredforthe
proofofanyfact.”Thelegislature
determined,aslongagoas1872,
presumablyafterdueconsiderationof
theprosandcons,thatitshallnotbe
necessaryforproofordisproofofa
fact,tocallanyparticularnumberof
witnesses.InEngland,bothbeforeand
afterthepassingoftheSectionIndian
EvidenceAct,1872,therehavebeena
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
36/51
numberofstatutesassetoutin
Sarkar’s’LawofEvidence’-9th
Edition,atpp.1100and1101,
forbiddingconvictionsonthe
testimonyofasinglewitness.The
IndianLegislaturehasnotinsistedon
layingdownanysuchexceptionsto
thegeneralrulerecognizedinSections.134
quotedabove.Thesectionenshrines
thewellrecognizedmaximthat
“Evidencehastobeweighedandnot
counted”.OurLegislaturehasgiven
statutoryrecognitiontothefactthat
administrationofjusticemaybe
hamperedifaparticularnumberof
witnessesweretobeinsistedupon.It
isnotseldomthatacrimehadbeen
committedinthepresenceofonlyone
witness,leavingasidethosecases
whicharenotofuncommon
occurrence,wheredeterminationof
guiltdependsentirelyon
circumstantialevidence.Ifthe
Legislatureweretoinsistupon
pluralityofwitnesses,caseswherethe
testimonyofasinglewitnessonly
couldbeavailableinproofofthe
crime,wouldgounpunished.Itishere
thatthediscretionofthepresiding
judgecomesintoplay.Thematterthus
mustdependuponthecircumstances
ofeachcaseandthequalityofthe
evidenceofthesinglewitnesswhose
testimonyhastobeeitheracceptedor
rejected.Ifsuchatestimonyisfound
bythecourttobeentirelyreliable,
thereisnolegalimpedimenttothe
convictionoftheaccusedpersonon
suchproof.Evenastheguiltofan
accusedpersonmaybeprovedbythe
testimonyofasinglewitness,the
innocenceofanaccusedpersonmay
beestablishedonthetestimonyofa
singlewitness,eventhougha
considerablenumberofwitnessesmay
beforthcomingtotestifytothetruth
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
37/51
ofthecasefortheprosecution.Hence,
inouropinion,itisasoundandwell-
establishedruleoflawthatthecourtis
concernedwiththequalityandnot
withthequantityoftheevidence
necessaryforprovingordisprovinga
fact.Generallyspeaking,oral
testimonyinthiscontextmaybe
classifiedintothreecategories,namely
:
(1)Whollyreliable.
(2)Whollyunreliable.
(3)Neitherwhollyreliablenorwholly
unreliable.
15.Inthefirstcategoryofproof,the
courtshouldhavenodifficultyin
comingtoitsconclusioneitherway-
itmayconvictormayacquitonthe
testimonyofasinglewitness,ifitis
foundtobeabovereproachor
suspicionofinterestedness,
incompetenceorsubornation.Inthe
secondcategory,thecourt,equallyhas
nodifficultyincomingtoits
conclusion.Itisinthethirdcategory
ofcases,thatthecourthastobe
circumspectandhastolookfor
corroborationinmaterialparticulars
byreliabletestimony,director
circumstantial.Thereisanotherdanger
ininsistingonpluralityofwitnesses.
Irrespectiveofthequalityoftheoral
evidenceofasinglewitness,ifcourts
weretoinsistonpluralityofwitnesses
inproofofanyfact,theywillbe
indirectlyencouragingsubornationof
witnesses.Situationsmayariseanddo
arisewhereonlyasinglepersonis
availabletogiveevidenceinsupport
ofadisputedfact.Thecourtnaturally
hastoweighcarefullysucha
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
38/51
testimonyandifitissatisfiedthatthe
evidenceisreliableandfreefromall
taintswhichtendtorenderoral
testimonyopentosuspicion,it
becomesitsdutytoactuponsuch
testimony.Thelawreportscontain
manyprecedentswherethecourthad
todependandactuponthetestimony
ofasinglewitnessinsupportofthe
prosecution.Thereareexceptionsto
thisrule,forexample,incasesof
sexualoffencesorofthetestimonyof
anapprover;boththesearecasesin
whichtheoraltestimonyis,byitsvery
nature,suspect,beingthatofa
participatorincrime.But,wherethere
arenosuchexceptionalreasons
operating,itbecomesthedutyofthe
courttoconvict,ifitissatisfiedthat
thetestimonyofasinglewitnessis
entirelyreliable.Wehave,therefore,no
reasonstorefusetoactuponthe
testimonyofthefirstwitness,whichis
theonlyreliableevidenceinsupport
oftheprosecution.
41.Sofaranotherargumentoflearnedcounselsforthe
appellantsthatnoindependentwitnesseshavebeenexamined
inthiscaseisconcerned,itappearsthatPW4andPW5have
beenexaminedasindependentwitnessesandtheyhave
supportedthefactumofoccurrenceanddateofoccurrencebut
theyhavenotnamedtheappellantsandotheraccusedpersons
andnotidentifiedthem.Thiscourtcannotshutitseyestothe
situationprevailinginthesocietythatinthesedays,nopersons
arewillingtocomeforwardasawitnessanddeposeinthecourt
inordertosavethemselvesfromharassmentcausedtothemat
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
39/51
thepolicestationandappearingbeforetheCourtdaysafter
days.Hon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofSectionAppabhaiand
anothervs.StateofGujaratreporedin[AIR1988SC696]
hasconsideredthisaspectofthematterandhasobservedinpara
36,whichreadsasfollows:-
“36.Itisnodoubttruethattheprosecution
hasnotbeenabletoproduceany
independentwitnesstotheincidentthattook
placeatthebusstand.Theremusthavebeen
severalofsuchwitnesses.Butthe
prosecutioncasecannotbethrownoutor
doubtedonthatgroundalone.Experience
remindsusthatcivilizedpeoplearegenerally
insensitivewhenacrimeiscommittedeven
intheirpresence.Theywithdrawbothfrom
thevictimandthevigilante.Theykeep
themselvesawayfromtheCourtunlessitis
inevitable.Theythinkthatcrimelikecivil
disputeisbetweentwoindividualsorparties
andtheyshouldnotinvolvethemselves.This
kindofapathyofthegeneralpublicisindeed
unfortunate,butitisthereeverywhere
whetherinvillagelife,townsorcities.One
cannotignorethishandicapwithwhichthe
investigatingagencyhastodischargeits
duties.Thecourt,therefore,insteadof
doubtingtheprosecutioncaseforwantof
independentwitnessmustconsiderthebroad
spectrumoftheprosecutionversionandthen
searchforthenuggetoftruthwithdueregard
toprobabilityifany,suggestedbythe
accused.TheCourt,however,mustbearin
mindthatwitnessestoaseriouscrimemay
notreactinanormalmanner.Nordothey
reactuniformly.Thehorrorstricken
witnessesatadastardlycrimeoranactof
egregiousnaturemayreactdifferently.Their,
courseofconductmaynotbeofordinary
typeinthenormalcircumstances.TheCourt,
therefore,cannotrejecttheirevidencemerely
becausetheyhavebehavedorreactedinan
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
40/51unusualmanner.SectionInRanaPratapv.Stateof
Haryana1988(3)S.C.C.327O.Chinnappa
ReddyJ.speakingforthisCourtsuccinctly
setoutwhatmightbethebehaviourof
differentpersonswitnessingthesame
incident”.
42.Inviewoftheabovepronouncement,theevidenceof
PW10,whoisaninjuredwitnessandhispresenceisalsonot
doubted,appearstobereliableandtrustworthy.Assuch,his
evidencecannotbebrushedasideduetonon-examinationof
independentwitnesses.Furthermore,PW4andPW5are
independentandinjurewitnessesandtheyhavealsosupported
thefactumofoccurrence.
43.EvidenceofPW11(SatyadeoRam)disclosedaboutthe
oraldyingdeclarationofdeceasedShyamNarayanYadavand
onclosescrutinyofevidenceofPW11,itappearsthathe
reachedatSadarhospitalimmediatelyaftertheoccurrenceand
ShyamNarayanYadavdisclosedhimthenamesofaccused
personsincludingappellants,assuch,theaforesaidstatement
onfactsappearstobeinrelationtothefactsinissueandpartof
thesametransaction.Hence,thatappearstoberelevantunder
Section6oftheIndianEvidenceAct.Theaboveevidenceof
PW11wasassailedbytheappellantsfirstlyonthegroundthat
theevidenceofdoctorsdonotshowthathewasinafitstateof
mind,secondly,thereisnocertificationofthedoctorsabouthim
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
41/51
beinginafiststateofmind,thirdly,onthegroundthatevidence
ofPW10andPW11showsthattheoraldyingdeclarationhas
beenmadeinpresenceofpoliceofficialandevidenceofPW11
furthershowsthatsamehasbeenrecordedbyOfficerIn-charge
ofTownPoliceStationbutthereisnosuchevidenceavailable
onrecordandfourthlyonthegroundthatevidenceofPW4and
PW5disclosedthatShyamNarayanYadavwasinunconscious
condition.
44.OnscrutinyofevidenceofPW11,itappearsthathehas
statedinhisevidenceasdiscussedabovethatwhenhereached
thehospitalChandrashekharPrasadhaddiedandShyam
NarayanYadavwasininjuredconditionandhewasuttering
somethingandOfficerIn-chargeofTownPoliceStationwas
alsoreachedthereandShyamNarayanYadavdisclosedthat
appellantsandotheraccusedpersonsfiredatthem.Thiswitness
hasbeencross-examinedandinhiscross-examination,hehas
statedthatwhateverShyamNarayanYadavwastelling,the
samewaslistenedbyothersalsoandafterstatementofRamesh
SinghKushwaha,hebecameunconscious.PW10hasalsostated
inhisevidencethattheOfficerIn-Chargewastakingthe
statementofShyamNarayanYadavandSatyadeoRam(PW11),
RameshSinghKushwaha(PW8)andSamsuddinMian(PW9)
werepresentatthattime.
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
42/51
45.Apartfromabove,fardbeyan(Ext.1)alsoshowsthat
ShyamNarayanYadavdisclosedthenamesofaccusedpersons
inpresenceofPW11(SatyadeoRam).EvidenceofPW10also
disclosedtheabovefactsthoughthereisslightvariationinthe
evidenceofPW10andPW11butasdiscussedabove,some
discrepanciesareboundtooccurasthepowerofobservation
differsfrompersontopersonandwhatonemaynoticeanother
maynotandtheycanonlyberecalledtheversionanditis
unrealistictoexpectawitnesstodeposelikeaparrot.Itfurther
appearsthatthereisnocross-examinationtoPW1,theOfficer
In-charge,whohasrecordedthestatementofinformantRamesh
SinghKushwaha(PW8)oranyotherpoliceofficialsaboutthe
disclosuremadebythedeceasedShyamNarayanYadav
Prosecutionhasnotevencross-examinedPW2Dr.Laxman
Prasadonthispointandaccordingtothedoctor(PW2),itwas
doctor(PW3),thesurgeonondutyatthetimeofadmissionof
deceasedbutevenPW3hasnotbeencross-examinednorany
suggestionhasbeengiventohimonthispoint.
46.Itiswellsettledthatthedefenceinordertoextract
advantage,hastocrossexaminethewitnessesinrespectof
missinglinks,assuch,nogrievancecanberaisedatthis
juncture.Hon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofGianChandand
Others(supra),asrelieduponbylearnedcounselappearingon
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
43/51
behalfofC.B.I.,theHon’bleApexCourtinparagraph11and12
hasheldasfollows:-
11.Theeffectofnotcross-examininga
witnessonaparticularfact/circumstance
hasbeendealtwithandexplainedbythis
CourtinLaxmibai(Dead)Thr.SectionL.Rs.Anr.
v.Bhagwanthuva(Dead)Thr.L.Rs.Ors.,
AIR2013SC1204observingasunder:
“31.Furthermore,therecannotbeany
disputewithrespecttothesettledlegal
proposition,thatifapartywishestoraise
anydoubtasregardsthecorrectnessofthe
statementofawitness,thesaidwitnessmust
begivenanopportunitytoexplainhis
statementbydrawinghisattentiontothat
partofit,whichhasbeenobjectedtobythe
otherparty,asbeinguntrue.Withoutthis,it
isnotpossibletoimpeachhiscredibility.
Suchalawhasbeenadvancedinviewofthe
statutoryprovisionsenshrinedinSection
138oftheEvidenceAct,1872,whichenable
theoppositepartytocross-examinea
witnessasregardsinformationtenderedin
evidencebyhimduringhisinitial
examinationinchief,andthescopeofthis
provisionstandsenlargedbySection146of
theEvidenceAct,whichpermitsawitnessto
bequestioned,inter-alia,inordertotesthis
veracity.Thereafter,theunchallengedpartof
hisevidenceistobereliedupon,forthe
reasonthatitisimpossibleforthewitnessto
explainorelaborateuponanydoubtsas
regardsthesame,intheabsenceofquestions
puttohimwithrespecttothecircumstances
whichindicatethattheversionofevents
providedbyhim,isnotfittobebelieved,and
thewitnesshimself,isunworthyofcredit.
Thus,ifapartyintendstoimpeacha
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
44/51
witness,hemustprovideadequate
opportunitytothewitnessinthewitnessbox,
togiveafullandproperexplanation.The
sameisessentialtoensurefairplayand
fairnessindealingwithwitnesses.”
12.Thedefencedidnotputanyquestionto
theInvestigatingOfficerinhiscross-
examinationinrespectofmissingchitsfrom
thebagscontainingthecase
property/contrabandarticles.Thus,no
grievancecouldberaisedbytheappellants
inthisregard.
47.Sofarargumentthatthereisnocertificationbythe
doctorsthatthedeceasedShyamNarayanYadavwasnotinafit
stateofmindtospeak,whenthereareevidencesofPW10and
PW11thatthedeceaseddisclosedthenamesofappellantsand
otheraccusedpersonsastheassailantsandthesamehasalso
beenmentionedinthefardbeyan(Ext.1),whichwasrecorded
immediatelyaftertheoccurrenceandthesamecannotbethrown
outmerelyonthegroundthatthesamehasnotbeencertifiedby
thedoctors.Hon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofSectionStateof
MadhyaPradeshv.DalSinghreportedin[AIR2013
SupremeCourt2059]hasconsideredthisaspectandheldin
para14,whichreadsasfollows:-
14.Thelawontheissuecanbesummarised
totheeffectthatlawdoesnotprovidewho
canrecordadyingdeclaration,noristhere
anyprescribedform,format,orprocedure
forthesame.Thepersonwhorecordsa
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
45/51dyingdeclarationmustbesatisfiedthatthe
makerisinafitstateofmindandiscapable
ofmakingsuchastatement.Moreover,the
requirementofacertificateprovidedbya
Doctorinrespectofsuchstateofthe
deceased,isnotessentialineverycase.
Undoubtedly,thesubjectoftheevidentiary
valueandacceptabilityofadying
declaration,mustbeapproachedwithcaution
forthereasonthatthemakerofsucha
statementcannotbesubjectedtocross-
examination.However,thecourtmaynot
lookforcorroborationofadyingdeclaration,
unlessthedeclarationsuffersfromany
infirmity.
Sofarasthequestionofthumbimpressionis
concerned,thesamedependsuponfacts,as
regardswhethertheskinofthethumbthat
wasplaceduponthedyingdeclarationwas
alsoburnt.Evenincaseofsuchburnsinthe
body,theskinofasmallpartofthebody,i.e.
ofthethumb,mayremainintact.Therefore,
itisaquestionoffactregardingwhetherthe
skinofthethumbhadinfactbeen
completelyburnt,andifnot,whetherthe
ridgesandcurveshadremainedintact”.
48.TheHon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofPothakamuri
SrinivasulualiasSectionMoogaSubhaiahv.StateofAndhra
Pradeshreportedin[AIR2002SC2780],whiledealingwith
thesimilarfactsobservedinpara-8ofitsjudgment,which
readsasfollows:-
“8ItwassubmittedbyMs.NanitaSharma,
thelearnedcounselfortheappellantthatfor
severalreasonsthedyingdeclarationcannot
bebelieved.Shesubmittedthatlookingto
thenatureoftheinjuriessufferedbythe
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
46/51deceasedpossiblyshecouldnothavespoken
andmusthavebecomeunconscious
instantaneously.However,nosuch
suggestionhasbeenmadetoanyofthe
witnessesincludingthetwodoctorswho
respectivelyconductedthemedico-legal
examinationandpost-mortemexamination
ofthevictim.Onthecontrarythethreeeye-
witnesseshavepositivelystatedthatthe
deceasedwasspeakingwhentheyhadmet
hersoonaftertheincident.Thevictimhad
diedtowdaysaftertheincident.Wecannot
inthefaceofthispositiveevidencejust
assumethattheinjuredmusthavebecome
unconsciousandspeechlessbecauseofthe
injuriesanddiscardonsuchassumptionthe
dyingdeclarationdeposedtobyindependent
witnessescorroboratedbythepromptly
lodgedFIR.
49.Sofardecisioncitedbylearnedcounselsforthe
appellantsinthecaseofUmakantandAnr(supra)with
respecttodyingdeclarationandinthatcase,Hon’bleApex
Courthaslaiddowncertainguidelinesinpara-20ofthesaid
judgmentalsodisclosedthatwherethecourtissatisfiedthatthe
declarationistrueandvoluntary,itcanbaseitsconviction
withoutfurthercorroboration.
50.Fromthediscussionsmadeabove,itappearsthatoral
dyingdeclarationofdeceasedShyamNarayanYadavdoesnot
sufferfromanyglitchratherthesameappearstobereliableand
credible.Nowthequestionarises,astowhether,statement
madebydeceasedShyamNarayanYadavbeforehisdeathis
relevantindeterminingthecauseofdeathofdeceased
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
47/51
ChandrashekharPrasadornot.Thesaidquestionwas
consideredbytheHon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofSectionTejram
Patilv.StateofMaharashtrareportedin2015CRI.L.J.
1829,inwhich,theHon’bleApexCourtafterconsidering
Section32andSection6oftheIndianEvidenceActaswellasseveral
otherpronouncementsofHon’bleApexCourtincludingthe
casesSectionKashiramTukaramJadhavv.StateofMaharashtra
reportedin1984CRI.L.J.1447(Bom),RatanGondv.State
ofBiharreportedinAIR1959SC18,SectionSharadBirdhiChand
Sardav.StateofMaharashtrareportedin(1984)4SCC116
aswellasthecaseSectionPakalaNarayanSwamiv.Emperor
reportedinAIR1939PC47hasheldinpara25ofthe
judgmentthat”ItisthusclearthattheDDisadmissiblenot
onlyinrelationtothecauseofdeathofthepersonmakingthe
statementandastocircumstancesofthetransactionwhich
resultedinhisdeath,ifthecircumstancesofthesaidtransaction
relatetodeathofanotherperson,thestatementcannotbeheld
tobeinadmissiblewhencircumstancesof”his”deathare
integrallyconnectedtothecircumstancesofdeathofsuchother
person”.Inthepresentcase,thestatementmadebytheShyam
NarayanYadavbeforehisdeathisnotonlyrelatesto
circumstancesofthepresentcaseresultinginhisdeathbutit
alsoshowsthetransactionresultingindeathofdeceased
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
48/51
ChandrashekharPrasadandassuch,hisevidenceisadmissible
withregardtocircumstancesoftransactionresultinginhisdeath
aswellasthedeathofdeceasedChandrashekharPrasad.
51.Learnedcounselfortheappellantsalsoemphasizedthe
pointthattheF.I.RlodgedbytheC.B.I.isthesecondF.I.R.,as
oneF.I.R.hasalsobeenlodgedonthestatementofPW8
RameshSinghKushwahabyPW2assuch,itishitunder
Section162Cr.P.C.However,onperusaloftherecord,it
appearsthatF.I.R.lodgedbytheC.B.I.isnothingbut
interpretationofthestatementmadebyPW8RameshSingh
KushwahaasrequiredunderC.B.I.manual,andasper
notification-Ext.9series,theinvestigationwasentrustedtothe
C.B.I.,whichitdid,andassuch,itcouldnotbesaidtobehitby
Section162Cr.P.C.
52.Eventheevidenceofwitnessesexaminedonbehalfof
defencedi.e.DW5,DW6,DW8,DW9andDW10,disclosed
thatanoccurrenceoffiringtookplaceonthedayandtimeof
occurrencethoughtheytriedtoshowthatNepaliBhutiaswere
responsiblefortheoccurrence.
53.Defencehasalsocomewithalibiofalltheappellantsbut
theappellantsintheirstatementrecordedunderSection313
Cr.P.C.hasnottakensuchapleaandassuch,theirpleaofalibi
doesnotstand.
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
49/51
54.Evidencefurtherdisclosedthatmotivebehindthe
occurrenceisthatthelocalM.P.wasnothappywiththe
popularityofdeceasedChandrashekharPrasadandhehad
threatenedChandrashekharPrasadearlierandtheappellantsare
themenoflocalM.P.anditfurtherappearsthatthedeceased
werecampaigningforBiharBandhandaddressedtheseriesof
meetingand,then,theywerekilledandabovefactalsofound
supportsfromtheevidenceofPW12KaushalyaDeviandshe
alsowithstoodthetestofcross-examinationandstatedthat
hersonwasearlierthreatened.Hence,therearesufficient,
cogentandreliableevidencesavailableonrecordwithrespectto
themotivebehindtheoccurrence.
55.ItappearsthatappellantswereconvictedunderSections
302/Section149,Section307/Section149andSection120BoftheIndianPenalCodeandunder
Section27oftheArmsAct.Learnedcounselfortheappellants
haveassailedtheconvictionofappellantsunderSection120B
oftheIndianPenalCodeonthegroundthatthereisnoevidence
availableonrecordsoastoshowthattheaccusedpersons
includingappellantsconspiredwithsomeonetokillthe
deceasedandtheyhavenomotivetocommitsuchanoffence.
56.Hon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofSectionYogesh@Sachin
JagdishJoshivs.StateofMaharashtrareportedin2008(C)
CRI.L.J.9872hasconsideredthesaidaspectofthematterand
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
50/51
itismanifestthatmeetingofmindoftwoormorepersonsfor
doinganillegalactbyillegalmeansissinequanonofthe
criminalconspiracybutitmaynotbepossibletoprovethe
agreementbetweenthembydirectproof.Nevertheless,
existenceoftheconspiracyanditobjectivecanbeinferredfrom
thesurroundingcircumstancesmustformachainofeventsfrom
whichaconclusionabouttheguiltoftheaccusedcouldbe
drawn.Itiswellsettledthatanoffenceofconspiracyis
substantiveoffenceandrendersthemereagreementtocommit
anoffencepunishableevenifanoffencedoesnottakeplace
pursuanttotheillegalagreement,assuch,thiscourtdoesnot
findforceintheargumentoflearnedcounselsfortheappellants
thatnocaseunderSection120BoftheIndianPenalCodeis
madeoutagainsttheappellants.
57.Fromtheentirediscussionsmadeabove,wefindthat
PW10isaninjuredandaneyewitnessoftheoccurrenceandhe
hassupportedtheprosecutioncaseandhisevidenceis
corroboratedbyoraldyingdeclarationofdeceasedShyam
NarayanYadavandthereareevidencesofotherwitnesses
availableonrecordsofarfactumofoccurrenceisconcerned.
Assuch,therearesufficientevidenceavailableonrecord
againsttheappellantsthattheyinconspiracywithother,killed
deceasedChandrashekharPrasadandShyamNarayanYadav
PatnaHighCourtCR.APP(DB)No.325of2012
51/51
andalsocausedfirearminjuriestoothersand,hence,weareof
theconsideredviewthattheprosecutionhasbeenabletoprove
itscasebeyondreasonableshadeofdoubtandtheimpugned
judgmentandorderdoesnotsufferfromanyinfirmity.
58Accordingly,convictionandsentenceoftheappellantsinall
theabovethreeappealsunderSection302/Section149,Section307/Section149,Section120B
oftheIndianPenalCodeaswellasunderSection27ofthe
ArmsActisupheld.
59.Accordingly,alltheabovethreeappealsaredismissed.
(VinodKumarSinha,J)
AdityaKumarTrivedi,J._.
(AdityaKumarTrivedi,J)
sunilkumar/-
AFR/NAFRAFR
CAVDATE26.02.2019
UploadingDate10.05.2019
TransmissionDate10.05.2019