Patna High Court
Sonu Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh And Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 19 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.261 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2012 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Begusarai
======================================================
Ram Bachan Singh Son of Sri Balram Singh, Resident of Village-Hadipur,
Police Station-Bachhwara in the District of Begusarai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 288 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2012 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Begusarai
======================================================
Munna Singh S/o Late Chandrika Singh, Residents of Village- Hadipur, P.S.-
Bachhabara, District- Begusarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 365 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-68 Year-2012 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Sonu Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh and Anr
2. Manoj singh @ Manoj Kumar Singh, Both sons of Shashikant Singh @
Bhola Singh, Both Residents of Village Hadipur, P.S. Bachhbara, District-
Begusarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 261 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mrs. Kiran Kumari, Advocate
Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate
Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha, Advocate
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
2/25
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 288 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mrs. Kiran Kumari, Advocate
Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate
Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 365 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mrs. Kiran Kumari, Advocate
Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate
Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
Date : 18-12-2023
All the present appeals have been filed under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') challenging the order of conviction dated
23.01.2017
and order of sentence dated 25.01.2017 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Sessions Case No. 319 of
2013 arising out of Bhagwanpur (Tiyai) P.S. Case No. 68 of 2012,
whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the present
appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34,
120B and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to
as the 'I.P.C.') as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act and the
appellants and other convicts were awarded sentence of life
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
imprisonment for conviction under Section 302/34 of I.P.C.,
Section 120B of I.P.C. and three years of rigorous imprisonment
for conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is stated that no
sentence has been awarded for conviction under Section 307/34 of
the I.P.C.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeals
are as under:-
2.1. The fardbeyan of Ram Vinay Singh was recorded on
29.06.2012 at about 15:30 hours at Alexia Hospital, Begusarai,
wherein the informant has stated that on 29.06.2012, the Baraat
was coming to Hadipur by city ride bus from Salimpur village of
Patna District. His son-in-law Mukesh Singh @ Puttu Singh, son
of Ram Pravesh Singh, resident of Hadipur P.S. Chhawada,
District-Begusarai, and six other people were travelling in the said
bus. As soon as the bus reached near the tree of Pakar at village
Maheshpur Mor, the bus was stopped from the front by Sonu
Kumar Singh and Manoj Singh. They got into the bus and started
firing shots with the country-made pistols. Due to their firing, his
son-in-law Mukesh Singh @ Puttu Singh got shot in the chest on
both sides, elbow of left arm and below the lips and on the
forehead on both sides, due to which, he died in the bus. After his
death, he wanted to get down from the bus but Rambachan Singh,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
Munna Singh, Balram Singh and Chhotu Singh, who all were
standing outside the bus, started firing. The said incident happened
around 12:30 p.m. The reason behind the shooting is that the son-
in-law of the informant had a conflict with the accused persons
and around 3 years back, he had filed a case. All the accused
person murdered his son-in-law to resolve the case.
2.2. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, a formal
F.I.R. came to be registered. The Investigating Officer thereafter
started the investigation and during the course of the investigation,
he had recorded the statement of the witnesses. The dead body of
the deceased persons were sent for post mortem. The Investigating
Officer has also collected the documentary evidence and thereafter
filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the concerned
Magistrate Court. However, as the case was exclusively triable by
the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same
to the concerned Sessions Court.
2.3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution had
examined 11 witnesses, whereas the defense has examined 3
witnesses. The prosecution has also produced documentary
evidence. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code
came to be recorded. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
passed the impugned order against which three different convicts
have filed three different appeals.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur
assisted by Mrs. Kiran Kumari, Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Mr. Bimal
Kumar, Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh and Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha for the
appellants and Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the
Respondent-State.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur for the
appellants, referred the deposition of the witnesses and thereafter
submitted that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-11 have not supported the
case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. It is further
submitted that, as per the case of the prosecution, there are two
eye-witnesses i.e. PW-6 Ram Binay Singh, who is the informant
and father-in-law of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Puttu
Singh and PW-10 Ram Pravesh Singh is also projected as an eye-
witness, who is the father of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Singh. It
is submitted that, though in the present case, as per the case of the
prosecution, two persons died in the occurrence in question and
one Fudan Thakur sustained injury, none of the relatives of the
deceased Saket Chaudhary have been examined nor Fudan Thakur
(injured) is examined by the prosecution. At this stage, it is also
contended that there are major contradictions in the deposition of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
the so-called eye-witnesses as well as PW-5 Kiran Devi, who is the
wife of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Singh, who came at the place
of occurrence after the occurrence took place, despite which, the
Trial Court has placed reliance upon the deposition of the said
witnesses. Thereby, the Trial Court has committed an error.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur would
further submit that, though as per the case of the informant, six
other passengers were present in the bus, none of the passengers
have been examined by the prosecution. It is also submitted that
even with regard to the place of occurrence, two different stories
have been put forward by the prosecution. It is submitted that the
Investigating Officer has not collected any material from the bus.
Learned advocate, at this stage, has referred the deposition given
by the Investigating Officer and submitted that the Investigating
Officer has collected empty cartridges from the road. However,
there is no reference with regard to the blood-stains found on the
road. It is, therefore, submitted that there is a dispute with regard
to the place of occurrence.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur further
submits that, as per the fardbeyan, the occurrence took place at
about 12:30 hours. However, from the medical evidence i.e. the
deposition given by the Doctor who had conducted the post
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
mortem of the dead body of the deceased, it is revealed that the
death of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Singh was caused within 24
hours. He has submitted that post mortem was conducted on
29.06.2012 at 04:30 p.m. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted
that the medical evidence does not support the case of the
prosecution. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that all these
appeals be allowed, and thereby, the impugned order be quashed
and set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has also referred the
deposition of the witnesses and thereafter submitted that the
prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. There is an evidence in the form of eye-
witnesses and the case of the eye-witnesses has been supported by
the medical evidence. It is submitted that the empty cartridges
were found from the place of occurrence i.e. from the road and,
therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error while
passing the impugned order. Learned A.P.P., therefore, urged that
no inference is required in the present appeals.
8. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have also perused
the evidence led before the Trial Court. From the material placed
on record, it emerges that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-11 have not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile.
The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 15:30 hours on
29.06.2012. As per the said fardbeyan, the occurrence took place
at about 12:30 hours. It is revealed from the fardbeyan that the
same was given at Alexia Hospital, Begusarai. However, it is not
coming out from the said fardbeyan that the dead body of Mukesh
Kumar Singh was taken to the said hospital. However, if the said
fardbeyan is carefully seen, it is revealed that the accused Sonu
Kumar Singh and Manoj Singh stopped the bus and entered into
the bus and started firing with the country-made pistols. In the said
firing, his son-in-law Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Puttu Singh
sustained gun-shot injuries on the chest on both sides, elbow of left
arm and below the lips as well as on the forehead, as a result of
which, his son-in-law died in the bus. Thereafter, they wanted to
get down from the bus but the accused Rambachan Singh, Munna
Singh, Balram Singh and Chhotu Singh, who were standing
outside near the bus, started firing. Thus, from the aforesaid F.I.R.
it appears that the son-in-law of the informant namely, Mukesh
Kumar Singh died on the spot in the said firing in the bus. The said
informant has not stated about the death of any other person and
the injury sustained by Fudan Thakur though the information was
given after four hours after the occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
8.1. The informant has given his deposition as PW-6
before the Court. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he
was returning from Bhawanipur, Patna in a city ride bus. When the
said bus reached near the turning of Maheshpur and Hadipur at
that time, driver of the bus i.e. Manoj stopped the bus, got down
and ran away. Thereafter, Manoj and Sonu, who were present on
the said place, entered inside the bus, whereas Munna Singh,
Chhotu Singh, Balram Singh and Ram Bachan Singh were
standing outside the bus. All the accused were carrying weapons in
their hands. Thereafter, Sonu and Manoj both started firing from
their country-made pistol, and in the said firing, his son-in-law
Mukesh Singh @ Puttu Singh sustained injury on various parts of
his body. He, therefore, called his daughter. His daughter came at
the place of occurrence. Till his daughter came at the place of
occurrence, his son-in-law was alive. His son-in-law told
something in her ears. In the said occurrence, Saket Chaudhary
and Fudan Thakur also sustained gun-shot injuries and, therefore,
all three were taken to Alexia Hospital, Begusarai. On the way, his
son-in-law Mukesh Singh succumbed to the injuries. Saket
Chaudhary died in the hospital during the course of treatment. His
statement was recorded by Darogaji. He has signed the said
statement. It is also stated that the incident occurred due to filing
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
of the case by his son-in-law when extortion money was demanded
from his son-in-law by the accused Balram Singh, Ram Bachan
Singh, Butan Singh and his son.
8.2. During cross-examination, he has admitted that his
fardbeyan was read over by Darogaji. It was not read out to him
that he called his daughter. It was also not read out to him that his
daughter came and his son-in-law told something in her ears. He
further stated that he had called his daughter from inside the bus.
He has further stated that the distance from his house and the
house of his daughter-in-law is 7-8 kms. It is also stated that he
had given the names of other people sitting in the bus in his
fardbeyan as the witnesses. This witness has also stated in the
cross-examination that about 10-15 buses were arranged for the
baratis. Except 2 buses, all the buses had returned at night. All
were smaller buses that came back. The city ride bus went only in
the morning and one car remained for bride and bride-groom. In
the city ride bus, 7-8 children were there and 6-7 people were also
in the said city ride bus. He was sitting in the backside of the bus
with children. The driver stopped the bus and ran away. He
recognized the accused persons. He was sitting in the bus when the
accused persons entered into the bus. Saket Chaudhary was shot at
when he opposed the accused. First, Mukesh Kumar Singh was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
shot and after that Saket Chaudhary was shot at. Mukesh Kumar
Singh and Saket Chaudhary were sitting at the back seat of the
driver. Mukesh Kumar Singh and Saket Chaudhary became
unconscious on their seats. The accused persons fled away. He
lifted both of them. He has further stated that S.I. went to the place
of occurrence. Who had shown the place of occurrence to the S.I.,
he did not know. The injured persons were brought from the place
of occurrence by other bus. The bus was not brought by the S.I. in
the police station. He has further stated that the father of Mukesh
Kumar Singh was coming in a mini bus behind their bus.
9. PW-10 Ram Pravesh Singh is also projected as an
eye-witness by the prosecution. The said person is the father of the
deceased Mukesh Kumar Singh. This witness has stated that the
incident took place on 29.06.2012 at about 12:15 hours when he
was returning from wedding ceremony of his son Amit Kumar
Singh. When the bus reached at Pirpaiti, Maheshpur round-about,
they found themselves surrounded from all sides. The driver
Manoj Singh stopped the bus. The accused Sonu Singh and Manoj
Singh boarded on the bus and started firing. During the said firing,
his son Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Puttu Singh, who was sitting in
the bus, sustained gunshot injuries. He spoke a few words from his
mobile and died there. Balram Singh, Rambachan Singh, Munna
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
Singh and Chhotu Singh were firing on the bus from outside.
Fudan Thakur and Saket Chaudhary also sustained bullet injuries.
All the three were taken to Alexia Hospital, Begusarai for
treatment. Saket Chaudhary died at the time when the medical
treatment was given to him and the Doctor had declared his son
Mukesh Kumar Singh died. The Inquest Report of Mukesh Kumar
Singh was prepared in the Alexia Hospital. He had signed the
Inquest Report. The said witness has also narrated about the cause
for the motive on the part of the accused to kill his son.
9.1. During cross-examination, PW-10 has stated that
several vehicles were present in the wedding (marriage
procession). All the vehicles returned in the night. Only three
vehicles were remaining. One of the three vehicles stayed there
whereas second vehicle was the city ride bus. The wedding
procession was returning in the said vehicle. He has further
admitted that he was in an Alto Car. He had no conversation with
the driver. Maheshpur is around 100 kms. from the place from
where the bus started. His vehicle was running at a distance of 15-
20 yards from the bus. The accused were sitting in the jungle
hiding themselves and, therefore, they did not notice them. The
first firing took place outside the bus. He was not afraid and went
running towards the bus. When he entered the bus, he found his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
son alive and speaking. Saket Chaudhary and Fudan Thakur were
injured. After the incident, the accused fled away. The police was
informed who came at the place within 10 minutes and took them
to the hospital. Police had recorded the statement after two days
and he had signed the said statement.
10. PW-5 Kiran Devi is the wife of the deceased Mukesh
Kumar Singh. She has stated that her husband Late Mukesh
Kumar Singh had gone in the marriage of his brother at Shalimpur,
Patna and was returning from wedding procession. He was
returning from the city ride bus. Manoj Singh was the driver of the
bus. Manoj Singh telephoned and called Sonu Singh, Manoj Singh,
Chhotu Singh, Balram Singh, Rambachan Singh and Murari
Singh. Near Maheshpur, the bus was stopped and the accused
Sonu Singh and Manoj Singh boarded the bus. Sonu Singh started
firing in which her husband sustained injuries. Accused have been
firing from all the sides. The accused used to demand extortion
money from her husband as he was in the business of vehicles. Her
husband previously filed a case and due to non-payment of
extortion money, the accused killed her husband. The accused have
also killed her relative Saket Chaudhary in the said incident and
one Fudan Thakur also got bullet injuries. Fudan Thakur had gone
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
as a barber in the wedding procession. The said witness had
identified the witnesses who were present in the Court.
10.1. During cross-examination, she has admitted that
the incident was reported by her father. The fardbeyan is filed by
her father. She has further stated that when the statement of her
father was recorded, she was also present. Her statement was taken
by Sub Inspector. She has further stated that when she reached at
the place of incident, Sub Inspector had not reached. Her statement
was taken in the hospital by the Police. Thereafter, she has stated
that her statement was recorded on the second day. She has also
stated that her father called at about 12:30 hours. Her house is less
than half kilometer to the place of incident. It took less than 5
minutes to reach the place of incidence. When she reached there,
her husband narrated all the details of the incident and then died.
Pursuant to the question put by the Court, the said witness has
stated that when she reached the place of occurrence, at that time,
her husband was alive and, therefore, he narrated the details and
then he died during the narration of the incident. She had not
signed the F.I.R. but her father had signed.
11. PW-3 Dr. Raju is the Medical Officer at Sadar
Hospital, Begusarai, who had performed the post mortem at about
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
04:30 p.m. on the dead body of the deceased Mukesh Kumar
Singh @ Puttu Singh. The said Doctor found following injuries:-
"1) Wound 1/2" x 1/2" lacerated inverted tattoing and
charring present around wound on right side angle of mouth. It is
entry wound.
2) Wound 11/2' x 2" margin lacerated and averted on left
temporal region of fiscal. It is exit wound.
3) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" margin inverted on right
side of chest. It is entry wound.
4) Lacerated wound 2" x 21/2" margin averted on left side
of lower limb. It is an exit wound.
5) Lacerated wound 1/2' x 1/2" margin inverted on left
elbow on medical part.
6) Lacerated wound 1" x 1" on left elbow lateral side.
7) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" margin inverted on right
elbow lateral part.
8) Lacerated wound 1" x 1" on right elbow medial part. It
is an exit wound.
9) Lacerated wound 1" x 1" on right knee medial part
margin inverted.
10) Lacerated wound 11/2" x 2" on right knee on lateral
part. Margins averted.
On dissection, I found blood was present in cranial cavity
and abdominal cavity. Stomach contain semi-digested food and
bladder was empty.
In my opinion, the cause of death was due to hemorrhage
and shock due to above injury caused by fire arm. Time since death-
within 24 hours."
11.1. During cross-examination, the said witness has
stated that, in his opinion, the death should be after 6 hours from
the time of post mortem. He has further stated that except Injury
No. 1 and 2 all the injuries are not caused by close range.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
12. PW-4 Dr. Pramod Kr. Singh was posted as Medical
Officer at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai. The said Doctor had
performed the post mortem on 29.06.2012 at 09:30 p.m. on the
dead body of the deceased Saket Chaudhary. He found the
following injuries:-
"1) One contused lacerated wound with small intestine
coming out in left iliac foosa was covered with cotton and bandage (it
was wound of exit) about 3" x 2" incised.
2) One bandaged operation (surgical) wound stitched in
lower median abdomen about 4.2" long.
3) One contused lacerated wound with inverted margin
(right) parasacral area 11/2" x 1". It was wound of entry.
4) On dissection, whole abdomen was full of blood.
Inferior venacava, sigmoid column and mesentry all were lacerated
with multiple injuries. Inferious venacava ruptured.
5) Foley's catheral insitu and two intro caths in both writs
were seal.
In my view the cause of death was due to projectile
(bullet) injury, injuring inferior venacava and multiple coils of
intestine leading to hemorrhage shock.
Time left since death 24 hours. The dead body was
handed over to accompanying police persons."
12.1. During cross-examination, the said witness has
stated that he found that the deceased was treated by some other
Doctor earlier. He has further stated that after opening the injury,
he did not find any charring and blackening, so it may be from
long range firing.
13. PW-8 Dr. Dheeraj Shandilya has stated in
examination-in-chief that he is the Director of Alexia Hospital,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
Begusarai. On 29.06.2012, he was present in his hospital. He is
also a Doctor of the said hospital. On 29.06.2012, Fudan Thakur
was admitted in his hospital in an injured condition. He admitted
the said patient and examined him and thereafter found the
following injuries:-
"(i) Injury wound on right shoulder. Exit wound was not present."
In his opinion, the nature of injury was grievous.
14. PW-9 Vishwamitra Singh is the Investigating Officer
who had taken over the charge of the investigation on 29.06.2012.
The Inquest Report of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Singh, Saket
Chaudhary were prepared by him and another officer. The Seizure
List was also prepared. The fardbeyan was in his writing and
signature. Thereafter, he visited the place of occurrence. The place
of occurrence is his village Maheshpur, Pipapanti Chowk,
Kharanja Road. From the said place, two 9 mm misfired bullet,
one 9 mm misfired bulled and four 9 mm fired bullets have been
seized. He has further recorded the statement of the witnesses. He
retired on 31.07.2012 and the investigation was handed over to
Pankaj Kumar Jha.
14.1. During cross-examination of the said witness, he
has stated that the informant has not told about the unknown
persons. During his further statement also, the informant has not
given the name of the passengers. He has further stated that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
incident took place inside the bus. He had seen the bus. However,
he had not written in the case diary that he has seen the bus. The
bus was also not brought to the police station after seizure. He has
also not written in the investigation about the number of seats in
the bus. He has not written about the distance between the place of
occurrence and the house of the informant. He has also not written
the name of the place from where the marriage procession had
started. He had also not visited the place of marriage procession.
The said witness has further stated that in the statement given by
Kiran Devi, she had not stated that Manoj Singh called up Sonu
Singh, Manoj Singh, Chhotu Singh, Balram Singh, Ram Bacchan
Singh and Murari Singh on telephone and accused were firing
from all around. The said witness has also not stated that the
accused used to demand extortion money from her husband
because he was a driver. The said witness further stated that
witness Ram Binay Singh (informant) had not stated in his
statement that his daughter came after he called her and also not
said that they were adjacent to each other in bus. He has further
admitted during cross-examination that witness Ram Binay Singh
(informant) had not stated in his statement that his son-in-law was
alive when his daughter came and he said something in her ears.
The said Ram Binay Singh has also not stated that his son-in-law
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
Mukesh Kumar Singh died on the way. It is also admitted that
Ram Binay Singh has stated in the fardbeyan that his son-in-law
had died in the bus. The Investigating Officer has further admitted
in cross-examination that he had not sent the cartridges for
scientific examination and the seized items were not with him.
15. PW-7 Pankaj Kr. Jha is the Investigating Officer who
had taken over the charge on 31.08.2012. The said Officer has
arrested some of the accused and thereafter filed the charge-sheet
against them. The criminal history of the concerned accused were
also obtained by him. As and when the accused were arrested,
supplementary charge-sheets were filed against the concerned
accused.
16. The defense has also examined 3 witnesses,
including DW-1 Fudan Thakur, who has sustained injury in the
alleged occurrence as per the case of the prosecution. However, the
prosecution did not examine him as a prosecution witness. We
have also considered the deposition given by two other defence
witnesses.
17. From the aforesaid evidence, it would emerge that
the prosecution has projected two witnesses as an eye-witness. The
informant Ram Binay Singh is the father-in-law of the deceased
Mukesh Kumar Singh. In the fardbeyan, the said witness has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
specifically stated that two of the accused boarded the bus and
started firing in which his son-in-law, namely, Mukesh Kumar
Singh sustained gunshot injuries on various parts of the body and
he died on the spot in the bus. However, while giving the
deposition before the Court, the said witness (PW-6) has stated
that one Saket Chaudhary was also there in the bus with his son-in-
law and when the accused started firing, Saket Chaudhary also
sustained the gunshot injury and both of them became unconscious
in the bus. Thereafter, they were lifted by him. This story is, for the
first time, placed by the said witness before the Court. This
witness has also stated before the Court, for the first time, that he
made telephone call to his daughter Kiran Devi and informed her
about the occurrence and thereafter his daughter Kiran Devi came
at the place of occurrence and his son-in-law Mukesh Kumar
Singh told something in the ears of his daughter. Thus, this story
was, for the first time, put forward by this witness before the
Court. At this stage, if the deposition of Investigating Officer (PW-
9) is carefully examined, it is revealed that the Investigating
Officer has admitted that the informant Ram Binay Singh had not
stated in his statement that he called his daughter, and when she
reached, his son-in-law stated something in her ears. It is further
revealed that, as per the fardbeyan, the other accused persons
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
started firing from outside the bus. However, there is no reference
with regard to the injury sustained by Saket Chaudhary and Fudan
Thakur in the fardbeyan. It is the specific case of the
appellants/accused that in the fardbeyan, two lines have been
added subsequently with different ink wherein it has been stated
that two other persons, whose names he did not know, are injured
by bullets. Thus, in the fardbeyan, the informant did not state
about the name of Saket Chaudhary and Fudan Thakur. It is to be
recalled at this stage that, as per the case of the prosecution, all the
three persons were taken to the Alexia Hospital, Begusarai and the
fardbeyan was given after four hours in the hospital itself. In the
fardbeyan, the informant has also not referred about the presence
of his daughter Kiran Devi. Thus, we are of the view that there are
major contradictions in the deposition of the informant and totally
a new story has been deposed by him before the Court.
18. The second projected eye-witness is Ram Pravesh
Singh, who is the father of the deceased Mukesh Kumar Singh. In
the examination-in-chief, the said witness has narrated the story as
if he was present in the city ride bus and he had seen the incident.
However, during cross-examination, the said witness has stated
that he was travelling in the Alto Car which was behind the city
ride bus at a distance of 10-15 yards. The said witness has also put
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
forward some different story and there are major contradictions in
his deposition. Thus, we are of the view that the so called eye-
witnesses are projected as chance witnesses and their deposition
cannot be relied as there are major contradictions and
inconsistencies.
19. Kiran Devi is, admittedly, not an eye-witness to the
occurrence and, as per the case of the prosecution, she reached at
the place of occurrence after some time. It is stated by her that
when she reached the place of occurrence, her husband was alive
and he narrated the entire occurrence in her ears. However, if the
fardbeyan, which was given after four hours from the time of
occurrence, it is revealed that the informant has stated that Mukesh
Kumar Singh died in the bus itself as a result of gunshot injury
sustained by him. Even there is a dispute with regard to the
distance between the place of occurrence and the house of the said
witness. It is to be recalled that, as per the case of the prosecution,
within 10 minutes, the Police reached the place of occurrence and
all the three persons were taken to Alexia Hospital, Begusarai.
20. It is pertinent to note that though the informant has
specifically stated that there were six other passengers in the city
ride bus, none of them have been examined by the prosecution.
Even injured Fudan Thakur was also not examined by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
prosecution. Further, from the medical evidence also, it is revealed
that the death of Mukesh Kumar Singh was caused before 6 hours
from the time of conducting the post mortem. If the time is
carefully examined, we are of the view that the theory put forward
by the prosecution is not supported by the medical evidence. As
per the Doctor, except Injury No. 1 and 2 all the injuries were not
caused by close range. At this stage, it is to be recalled that as per
the case of the so called eye-witness Ram Binay Singh
(informant), both the accused boarded the bus and started firing
from the close range in which Mukesh Kumar Singh sustained
injuries on various parts of his body.
21. It is further revealed from the record that the
Investigating Officer has not seized any cartridges from the bus
and it appears that the Investigating Officer has only seized certain
cartridges from the road. Even bus was not examined and no
article was seized from the bus. As per the fardbeyan, at two
places, occurrence took place i.e. in the bus and outside the bus.
However, the Investigating Officer has not even cared to collect
any material from the bus. Further, it is also revealed that though
certain empty cartridges of bullets were found from the road and
the same were seized while preparing the Seizure List, there is no
reference with regard to the blood-stains present at the said place
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
of occurrence i.e. the road. Even the empty cartridges or the bullets
were not sent for necessary analysis to F.S.L. Even the country-
made pistols from which the alleged firing took place were not
discovered or recovered by the Investigating Agency.
22. From the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view
that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the
appellants/accused beyond reasonable doubt, despite which, the
Trial Court has passed the impugned order of conviction against
the appellants. Hence, the impugned order is required to be
quashed and set aside.
23. Accordingly, we set aside the common impugned
judgment and order of sentence dated 23.01.2017/25.01.2017
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case
No. 319 of 2013 arising out of Bhagwanpur (Tiyai) P.S. Case No.
68 of 2012. The appellants, namely, Ram Bachan Singh [Cr. App.
(DB) No. 261 of 2017], Munna Singh [Cr. App. (DB) No. 288 of
2017], Sonu Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh and Manoj Singh @
Manoj Kumar Singh [Cr. App. (DB) No. 365 of 2017] are
acquitted of the charges leveled against them by the learned Trial
Court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.261 of 2017 dt.18-12-2023
24. Since, all the appellants, named above, are in
custody, they are directed to be released from jail forthwith, unless
their detention is required in any other case.
25. All these appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J)
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Sachin/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 21.12.2023
Transmission Date 21.12.2023
