SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dhruv Kumar Jaiswal @ Dhruv Prasad … vs The State Of Bihar Through C.B on 10 May, 2019

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
28/51

ofdacoityandtheallegedweapons
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
40/51

unusualmanner.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
45/51

dyingdeclarationmustbesatisfiedthatthe
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
46/51

deceasedpossiblyshecouldnothavespoken
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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation