Patna High Court
Ramadhar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 23 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.90 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2006 Thana- UDWANTNAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Ramadhar Singh Son of Late Sita Ram Singh Resident of Village -
Chaurasni, Police Station - Udawantnagar, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ajay Kumar Singh Son of Late Sita Ram Singh Resident of Village -
Chaurasni, Police Station - Udawantnagar, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 27 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2006 Thana- UDWANTNAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Ramadhar Singh Son of Late Sita Ram Singh Resident of Village- Chaurasni,
Police Station- Udawantnagar, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Umesh Singh @ Bambam Singh Son of Sri Bhagwan Singh Resident of
Village- Chaurasni, Police Station- Udawantnagr, District- Bhojpur.
3. Biru Singh @ Batru Singh Son of Sri Bhagwan Singh Resident of Village-
Chaurasni, Police Station- Udawantnagr, District- Bhojpur.
4. Satendra Singh S/o Sri Ramayan Singh Resident of Village- Chaurasni,
Police Station- Udawantnagr, District- Bhojpur.
5. Bambam Singh @ Baban Singh Son of Late Ganesh Singh Resident of
Village- Chaurasni, Police Station- Udawantnagr, District- Bhojpur.
6. Lal Babu Singh Son of Late Ganesh Singh Resident of Village- Chaurasni,
Police Station- Udawantnagr, District- Bhojpur.
7. Sri Bhagwan Singh Son of Late Shiv Pujan Singh Resident of Village-
Chaurasni, Police Station- Udawantnagr, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 90 of 2022)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Sr. Advocate
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.90 of 2022 dt.23-03-2023
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s :Mrs. S.B. Verma, APP
For the Accused :Mr. Anant Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 27 of 2022)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR)
Date : 23-03-2023
By these appeals, appellant who happens to be
First Informant is challenging the judgments and orders dated
30.11.2021 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhojpur (Arrah), Bihar, in connection with Sessions Trial
No.267 of 2008 and Sessions Trial No.3 of 2007, thereby
acquitting private respondents in both these appeals of the
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149,
under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. According to the prosecution case, there was
marriage of Ramasarekha Singh @ Lali Singh wherein deceased
Babloo, who happens to be nephew of the First Informant, was
present. It is further averred by the prosecution that at about
8:30 PM of that day, acquitted accused Umesh Singh snatched
country-made fire-arm from acquitted accused Ajay Singh and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.90 of 2022 dt.23-03-2023
suddenly fired at Babloo causing death of Babloo.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant argued that PW 1 Dhananjay Singh is an eyewitness to
the incident and the learned trial Court has committed error in
rejecting the trustworthy version of PW 1 Dhananjay Singh who
has deposed about the incident of commission of murder of
Babloo by the acquitted accused.
4. We have considered the submissions so
advanced. We also perused the materials placed on record.
5. It is seen that PW 1 Dhananjay Singh is
related to deceased Babloo. PW 2 Ramadhar Singh who
happens to be the First Informant and uncle of the deceased was
also knowing the incident in question. However, the report of
the incident in question came to be lodged after about four days
of the incident. There is no plausible explanation for delay in
lodging the report. Prior to lodging the report as seen from the
report, dead body of Babloo was already cremated and the
prosecution has not even proved the homicidal death of Babloo.
The learned trial Court has given cogent reason for acquittal of
respondents in the crime in question. Even the learned trial
Court has held that presence of the so called eyewitness on the
scene of the occurrence is doubtful and that is how his version
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.90 of 2022 dt.23-03-2023
came to be rejected. It is further held by the learned trial Court
that PW 1 Dhananjay Singh who happens to be an eyewitness to
the incident had disclosed the incident to the other witnesses
who are near and dear ones of the deceased. However, they had
also kept silence for a period of about four days.
6. In the light of appreciation of evidence by the
learned trial Court, we are unable to hold that the approach
adopted by the learned trial Court is perverse. The learned trial
Court has taken plausible view of the matter and, therefore,
there is no reason to interfere with the reasoned judgment of the
learned trial Court. Hence, the appeals are devoid of merit and
those are accordingly dismissed.
(A. M. Badar, J)
( Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.03.2023
Transmission Date 28.03.2023
