Vinay Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 5428 Patna

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.643 of 2013
  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2006 Thana- KAJI MUHAMMADPUR District-
                                     Muzaffarpur
======================================================

Ranjeet Kumar Jha @ Ranjeet Jha S/O Sri Shambhu Nath Jha Resident Of Village- Agraul, P.S.- Sindhiya, District- Samastipur

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 528 of 2013 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2006 Thana- KAJI MUHAMMADPUR District-

Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Gauri Shankar Singh @ Bhola S/O Sri Surendra Prasad Singh Resident Of Village- Mahmadda, P.S.- Pusa, District- Samastipur

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 591 of 2013 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2006 Thana- KAJI MUHAMMADPUR District-

Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Sidhnath Parasar S/O Gauri Shankar Mishra Resident Of Village Mahammadpur, Police Station Sakara In The District Of Muzaffarpur.

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 608 of 2013 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2006 Thana- KAJI MUHAMMADPUR District-

Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Vinay Kumar Sharma S/O Late Jangali Sharma Resident Of Village- Sherpur, P.S- Maner, District- Patna.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 730 of 2013 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2006 Thana- KAJI MUHAMMADPUR District-

Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Mintu Singh @ Dhruv Nath Mishra @ Dhruv Nath Kumar @ Dhruv Nath Parasar Son Of Late Gauri Shankar Mishra R/O Village-Mahammadpur Badar, P.S.-Sakara In The District Of Muzaffarpur

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 643 of 2013) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 528 of 2013) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Shandilya, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 591 of 2013) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Surendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.K. Lal, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 608 of 2013) For the Appellant/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr. (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 730 of 2013) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Surendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.K. Lal, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA C.A.V. JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI) Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

Date : 19-10-2023

The present appeals have been filed by the

appellants-convicts under Section 374(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Code') assailing the judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2013

and order of sentence dated 04.06.2013, passed by learned 2 nd

Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial

Nos.288 of 2009, 252 of 2010, 862 of 2008 and 548 of 2010,

arising out of Kazi Mohammadpur P.S. Case No.214 of 2006,

whereby appellants Mintu Singh @ Dhruvnath Parasar and

Ranjeet Jha have been found guilty under Sections 302, 307,

120(B) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred

to as 'IPC') as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act and

sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 302

and 120(B) of the IPC and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default

of payment of fine, they have to undergo RI for five years.

Appellants Mintu Singh @ Dhruvnath Parasar and Ranjeet

Jha have also been found guilty under Section 307 IPC and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years and fine of

Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment fine, they have to

undergo RI for two years. Appellants Mintu Singh @

Dhruvnath Parasar and Ranjeet Jha have further been found Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for three years. So far as appellants,

namely, Sidhnath Parasar, Vinay Kumar Sharma and Gauri

Shankar Singh are concerned, they have been found guilty for

the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120(B) IPC

and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of

Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they have to

undergo RI for one year. All the sentences are directed to run

separately.

2. The factual matrix of the present case is as

under:

"Fardbeyan of Gajendra Dubey came to be

recorded by SHO Sudhir Kumar Singh at the

residence of the informant on 10.12.2006 at

09:00 p.m. As per the fardbeyan, when the

informant was on his way to a party to the house

of the local MLC, he got a call from his nephew,

namely, Sonu Kumar stating that three unknown

persons came to his house and asked to open the

gate by stating that they are men of Ranveer

from Punaura. All the three persons entered into

the house and started firing upon Satyendra Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

Dubey (brother of the informant), Kishun Dubey

(son of the informant), Pankaj Thakur and Manoj

Thakur. All the aforesaid persons sustained

injuries and were admitted under care of Dr.

Virendra Kumar. The informant thereafter

directly rushed to the said nursing home and then

shifted them to SKMCH, Gaya wherein the

brother Satyendra Dubey and son Kishun Dubey

of the informant succumbed to the injuries. The

other two persons, namely, Pankaj Thakur and

Manoj Thakur were under medical supervision in

the hospital. On being questioned, Manoj Thakur

and Pankaj Thakur also stated that three accused

entered the house projecting themselves as men

of Ranveer from Punaura and started arguing and

said that Choudhary Ji had sent them. Those

three persons were Shyam Sundar Pathak @

Vinod @ Mannu (page torn) and Ranjeet Kumar

Jha. Thereafter the accused persons started firing

from the firearms which they were carrying. One

of the assailants also sustained injury in the said

firing. During hulla, the nearby people gathered Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

and took the injured persons to the hospital. It is

further stated in the fardbeyan that thereafter the

informant came to his house from SKMCH. He

found the dead body of a young person and

police was also present. The informant gave a

brief background, in light of the incident, and

stated that his brother Satyendra Dubey used to

give contractual work to transport goods of SFC,

Muzaffarpur and a case was lodged against him.

The said case was filed at the instance of Mintu

Singh and two others. In addition to that,

Satyendra Dubey had also got contract for

transportation of SFC goods in

Sitamarhi/Sheohar which was earlier done by

Bhupendra Yadav who had also filed an FIR

against Rajesh Choudhary and Tuntun

Choudhary. Among other people, Sidhnath

Parasar was also an accused in the said case. The

informant further alleged that the members of the

opposition party had been calling and asking

them to leave the contract threatening with life.

The informant further alleged that people Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

involved in killing of his brother along with his

son and injuring two other persons are Mintu

Singh, Rajesh Choudhary, Tuntun Choudhary,

Sidhnath Parasar, Sunil Singh, Santosh Kumar

Singh, Vinod Kumar Singh, Shyam Sundar

Pathak and Ranjeet Kumar Jha.

3. After registration of the FIR, the investigating

agency started investigation and during the course of

investigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses, inquest

Panchnama were prepared and dead bodies of three deceased

were sent for post mortem. After the investigation was over,

the investigating agency filed charge-sheet against the

concerned accused persons. However, as some of the accused

were not available, the charge-sheet came to be filed against

some of the accused after they came to be arrested. As the

offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the

concerned Magistrate Court committed the case to the Court

of Sessions and before the Sessions Court, four different

Sessions Trial Numbers were registered, i.e., Sessions Trial

Nos.288 of 2009, 252 of 2010, 862 of 2008 and 548 of 2010.

4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution

examined 15 witnesses and also produced documentary Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

evidence. The defence has also examined 11 witnesses.

Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was

also recorded and after conclusion of the Trial, the Trial Court

passed the impugned order whereby the present appellants

have been convicted, as observed hereinabove.

5. Heard Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned

A.P.P. for the respondent State in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.643 of

2013, Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned Senior Counsel, assisted

by learned counsel Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh and Mr. Abhinav

Shandilya for the appellant and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh,

learned A.P.P. for the respondent State in Cr. Appeal (D.B.)

No. 528 of 2013, Mr. Surendra Pd. Singh, learned Senior

Counsel, assisted by Mr. S.K. Lal, Mr. Sunil Kumar and Mr.

Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sujit

Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the respondent State in Cr.

Appeal (D.B.) No. 591 of 2013 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.730

of 2013.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

mainly contended that the appellants were not identified by

the family members of the informant and, in fact, they are not

the eye-witnesses to the occurrence in question. Thus, they Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

are projected as eye-witnesses who are relatives and family

members of the deceased. Thus, they are interested witnesses.

It is further submitted that the informant got the information

from his nephew, namely, Sonu Kumar that three unknown

persons entered into their house and started firing in which

four persons sustained firearm injuries and they were shifted

to the hospital. The informant thereafter went to the hospital

from where he got the names of the assailants and thereafter

he came to his house. Prior to that the family members, i.e.,

the lady members of the family were present at the place of

occurrence and the concerned police officer reached to the

house of the informant before the informant reached to his

house. However, none of the family members disclosed the

names of the assailants to the said police officer. Thus, it is

contended that the appellants are falsely implicated because

of business rivalry.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further

submits that the Trial Court wrongly placed reliance upon oral

dying declaration given by deceased Pankaj Thakur. It is

further submitted that PW-5 Manoj Kumar Thakur, who is an

injured eye-witness, has not identified any of the assailants.

Thus, when the injured eye-witness had not identified the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

assailants, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is

required to be quashed and set aside.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

appellants Sidhnath Parasar and Gauri Shankar Singh have

urged that no active role is assigned to the aforesaid

appellants in commission of the offence. It is further

submitted that there are major contradictions and

exaggeration in the deposition of the prosecution-witnesses.

Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned order be

quashed and set aside.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing

for the informant has vehemently opposed the appeals filed

by the appellants-convicts. Learned counsel has pointed out

about the motive on the part of the assailants to commit the

alleged offences. Thereafter, it is submitted that PW-1, PW-2,

PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 are eye-

witnesses to the incident in question. All the said witnesses

have specifically deposed against the appellants-accused and

more particularly with regard to the time, place of occurrence,

number of assailants, types of weapon used and injuries

sustained by injured, including the injury sustained by PW-5.

It is further submitted that medical evidence in the form of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

oral and documentary evidence of two prosecution witnesses,

i.e., PW-4, Dr. Sohan Prasad Choudhary and PW-11, Dr.

Mumtaj Ahmad, who conducted the post mortem of the

deceased persons and testified with respect to the injuries

sustained by the deceased persons and about the cause of

death are on record. It is submitted that, as per the post

mortem report, the death was caused due to shock and

haemorrhage caused due to firearm injuries. It is further

submitted that PW-15, Dr. Vijay Kumar Choudhary, who had

given the treatment to injured witness Manoj Kumar Thakur,

has also specifically narrated about the injury sustained by the

injured witness. It is further submitted that there is an oral

dying declaration of deceased Pankaj Thakur before the

informant and the Trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon

the same. Learned counsel further submitted that plea of alibi

taken by the concerned appellants-convicts has not been

proved from the deposition given by the defence witnesses.

10. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the

present one is the case of triple murder and in the occurrence

in question, the fourth person sustained injury. The

prosecution has proved the case against the appellants-

accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the Trial Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

Court has not committed any error while passing the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

11. Learned APP's. have also supported the

submissions canvassed by learned counsel for the informant

and urged that the present appeals be dismissed.

12. We have considered the submissions

canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the parties and we

have also perused the paper book and the evidence produced

by the prosecution before the Trial Court. From the materials

placed on record, it would emerge that the incident in

question took place at 07:00 p.m. in the house of the

informant. At about 09:00 p.m. on 10.12.2006, the fardbeyan

of the informant came to be recorded by Inspector Sudhir

Kumar Singh at the residence of informant Gajendra Dubey

(PW-13). PW-13 stated in his examination-in-chief that on

10.12.2006 at 07:00 p.m., he received a call from Kishore

Kumar @ Sonu. Sonu informed him that three persons

entered into the house by opening the gate by saying that they

are the persons of Ranveer Ji and immediately after entering

into the house, the said persons opened fire from the firearms

which they were carrying. The said firing was made on his

brother Satyendra Dubey, his son Kishan Kumar, staff Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

member Pankaj Thakur and relative Manoj Kumar Thakur.

All the four persons sustained injuries. It is further submitted

that Sonu informed him that he is taking the injured to the

hospital of Dr. Virendra Babu. The said witness, therefore,

directly reached to the clinic of the doctor but the doctor was

not available. Therefore, the injured persons were taken to Sri

Krishna Medical College. Satyendra Dubey and Kishan

Kumar were taken to operation theatre whereas two other

injured persons, namely, Pankaj Thakur and Manoj Thakur

were sitting in veranda. At that time, Kishan Kumar and

Satyendra Dubey succumbed to the injuries sustained by

them. At that time, Manoj Thakur informed the said witness

that he identified Mintu Singh as one of the assailants. It is

further stated by the said injured that when the said injured

was sitting with the other injured person, Mintu Singh, Shyam

Sundar Pathak @ Mannu and Ranjeet Kumar Jha entered the

house giving name of Ranveer Ji Choudhary and thereafter

started firing on all the four persons and in the said incident,

one of the assailants also sustained injury. PW-13, the

informant further stated that thereafter he went to his house

and noticed that the police had reached to his house. The said

witness also stated about the motive on the part of the accused Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

to kill Satyendra Dubey and others. He further stated that his

fardbeyan was recorded by Daroga Ji. Daroga Ji read over the

said fardbeyan to him and thereafter he put his signature on

the same. During cross-examination, the said witness stated

that he had seen Mintu Singh one year before the date of

occurrence. He has further stated in the cross-examination

that Sonu made telephone call at about 07:30 p.m. and

informed that three unknown persons entered the house by

opening the gate and started firing. He stayed at Medical

College for 15 minutes and at that time Manoj Thakur and

Pankaj Thakur were conscious and two injured were

unconscious.

13. PW-1 Shanti Devi stated in her examination-

in-chief that she along with other family members was sitting

in the drawing room and Satyendra Dubey, Kishan Kumar,

Manoj Thakur and Pankaj Thakur were sitting in the

verandah. The said witness further stated that she heard the

sound of opening of the door. They did not go outside and

thereafter she heard the sound of firing. She went outside and

saw that her son, her brother-in-law, Pankaj and Manoj

sustained gun-shot injury. This witness further stated in her

examination-in-chief that she identified Mintu Singh and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

Ranjeet Jha among the assailants.

13.1. PW-1, in her cross-examination, stated that

Mintu Singh used to come to her house to meet her family

members. Mintu Singh used to call on telephone and often

asked the whereabouts of her husband and brother-in-law.

This witness further stated in her cross-examination that her

husband and brother-in-law were contractors. PW-1 further

stated in her cross-examination that her husband and brother-

in-law had no dispute with anyone. It is further stated that

licence of the rifle was in the name of her husband.

14. PW-2 Karuna Dubey deposed in her

examination-in-chief that she along with her family members

was sitting in her drawing room. In the meantime, she heard

the sound of firing. She went outside and saw that her nephew

had caught an accused and Ranjeet Jha and Mintu were firing.

This witness further stated in her examination-in-chief that

her husband and nephew fell down after sustaining gunshot

injury. The accused, who was caught by her nephew, had also

sustained gun-shot injury. In addition to that, Pankaj and

Manoj Thakur had also sustained gun-shot injury. This

witness further deposed that she knew the persons who fired.

They used to visit her house for business purpose. Mintu Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

Singh and Ranjeet Jha used to visit her house. It is further

deposed that the accused who was caught by her nephew died

because of shots fired by the other two accused. This witness

also identified Mintu Singh in Court.

14.1. PW-2 stated in her cross-examination that

nobody from her family had fired shots. Pankaj Thakur was

conscious when he fell down and this witness talked to him.

This witness further stated in her cross-examination that she

talked to Manoj in the hospital. She did not talk to Manoj at

the place of occurrence.

15. PW-3 Kishore Kumar @ Sonu stated in his

examination-in-chief that he is the nephew of the informant.

The occurrence took place on 10.12.2006. It was 7 O' clock in

the evening. This witness stated that he was talking with his

family members. Other members of the family were sitting in

verandah. In the meantime, this witness heard the sound of

firing, they ran towards outside and saw that Kishan Kumar

had caught hold of a person and Mintu Singh and Ranjeet Jha

were firing. This witness further deposed in his examination-

in-chief that his younger maternal uncle Satyendra Dubey,

cousin Kishan Kumar, staff Pankaj Thakur, Manoj Thakur and

the person who was caught by Kishan sustained gun-shot Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

injuries. When this witness and other made hue and cry, the

person who were making firing, started to flee. This witness

further deposed that a Tata Sumo Victa vehicle was standing

there bearing Registration No.BR1P3140. Gauri Shankar

Singh and Sidhnath Parasar were also there. They too sat in

the vehicle and went towards Aghoriya Bazar. This witness

further deposed in his examination-in-chief that they brought

the injured persons to the clinic of Dr. Virendra Kishore

which was found closed. In the meantime, police vehicle

came and injured persons were brought to SKMCH where it

was found that Satyendra Dubey and Kishan Kumar had died.

Pankaj Thakur had also died after two days.

15.1. PW-3, in his cross-examination, has stated

that Daroga Ji recorded his statement. This witness further

stated in his cross-examination that he gave the same version

of the occurrence to Daroga Ji what he was giving that day. It

is further stated that he was in the room when the firing

started. This witness further deposed that there was

indiscriminate firing but, he cannot tell the number of bullets

fired. All went outside the room together. When he reached,

Satyendra Dubey and Kishan Kumar were in standing

position and their faces were towards the North direction. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

This witness further deposed in his cross-examination that the

person who was caught by his elder brother was also making

firing and two other accused were making firing whose faces

were towards South. This witness further stated that they were

making indiscriminate firing. No one had fired aiming them.

They made a hue and cry. One person was caught who made

firing and other two persons fled away. This witness gave

statement to Daroga Ji that his maternal brother caught hold

of an accused and Ranjeet Jha and Mintu Singh were making

firing. This witness further stated that he knew Mintu Singh

for the last three years. PW-3 further stated that he had only

recognized the faces of the accused but got to know their

names only from the Newspapers. He also stated that he

spotted the color of the van as silver but did not notice the

number and only got to know it after the police disclosed it.

16. PW-5 Manoj Kumar Thakur stated in his

examination-in-chief that he also sustained bullet injury. He

cannot remember the date of occurrence but the occurrence

took place 4-5 years ago. This witness further deposed that

he was sitting along with Satyendra Dubey, Miththu @

Kishan Pankaj. Thereafter two persons came and fired. He too

sustained bullet injury and fell down. Satyendra Kishan Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

Dubey and Pankaj also sustained bullet injuries besides him.

This witness further stated in his examination-in-chief that he

was unconscious, therefore, he cannot identify the persons

who made firing. The police had recorded his statement. This

witness was declared hostile by the APP.

17. PW-6 Amit Kumar @ Mukesh stated that at

the time of occurrence he was sitting in the drawing room and

rushed to the spot when he heard the sound of firing and saw

Mintu Singh and Ranjeet Jha firing shots at Satyendra Dubey,

Kishan Kumar, Pankaj Thakur and Manoj Thakur. He also

stated that one of the co-accused also sustained bullet injury.

When they made a hue and cry, Mintu Singh and others fled

away. There was dispute between the parties with regard to

contract. This witness identified the accused who were

present in Court.

17.1. This witness stated in his cross-

examination that he had been working with Satyendra Dubey

since the year 2000 and the transporting work, primarily, was

done in Muzaffarpur. It is further stated that he had come to

the court on warrant as he was being threatened not to give

statement in the present case and, therefore, he was abstaining

from court proceedings. PW-6 had also lodged an FIR against Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

the threat being given to him. It is further stated by PW-6 in

his cross-examination that he might have said in the initial

deposition that Mintu Singh and Ranjeet Jha were firing on

the spot, however, he denied the fact by stating that he did not

remember while deposing.

18. PW-7, Daya Shankar Singh stated that

contract was in his name, but Satyendra Dubey actually

performed the contract work. On the day of incident, this

witness was in computer room of Satyendra Dubey. He came

out of the room after hearing the sound of firing and saw

Ranjeet Jha and Mintu Singh fleeing brandishing the pistol

and he also saw Satyendra Dubey, Kishan Dubey, Manoj

Thakur, Pankaj Thakur and Shyam Sundar @ Mannu in

injured condition. Muhalla people also came there and the

injured persons were brought to SKMCH for treatment.

Satyendra Dubey and Kishan Dubey were declared 'dead' by

the doctor. There was dispute between Mintu Singh and

Satyendra Dubey with regard to a contractual work. It is

further deposed by this witness that Daroga Ji seized ten

empty cartridges, one extra magazine with eight cartridges,

one purse, two packets of cigarette, one mobile of Nokia

company and two Railway tickets.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

18.1. This witness stated in his cross-

examination that when he tried to apprehend the two

absconding accused, they aimed guns at him. However, PW-7

further stated in his cross-examination that he only knew

Mintu Singh and did not know the name of the other accused

Ranjeet Jha and only got to know his name after the incident.

19. PW-8, Bibhuti Kumar also supported the

prosecution case and identified the accused persons. This

witness stated in his deposition that he along with other

family members was sitting in the drawing room and rushed

to the spot only after hearing the sound of firing and saw that

Mintu Singh and Ranjeet Jha were firing from their guns on

the four injured persons. Thereafter, PW-8 along with others

chased the accused and they started fleeing away and a Sumo

van was parked near Krishna Sweets accompanied by Gauri

Shankar and Sidhnath Parasar who started the van and both

the main accused fled away with that van.

19.1. PW-8 stated in his cross-examination that

he knew Mintu Singh and Ranjeet Jha from before and knew

the other two accused only by face. He further stated that he

started chasing the accused while they were running towards

the parked van at Krishna Sweets and gun was also aimed at Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

him, but he kept on chasing till both the accused ran away

with the van accompanied with Gauri Shankar and Sidhnath

Parasar.

20. PW-9, Awadhesh Kumar Singh in his

examination-in-chief stated that while returning from his

home, he stopped nearby to have betel leaf. In the meanwhile,

he saw a white Sumo Victa vehicle standing by the road near

Krishna Sweets and approximately 2-3 people were inside the

van and one person was talking on phone while 2-3 others

were standing outside the van. This witness also stated in his

examination-in-chief that he saw Sidhnath Parasar and Mintu

Singh talking to each other. Thereafter 2-3 unknown persons

went towards Pankha Toli and then he also left the spot. It is

further deposed that he only got to know about the incident

next morning through Newspaper. This witness also stated

that he knows Mintu Singh and Sidhnath Parasar.

21. PW-10, Om Prakash deposed in his

examination-in-chief that he along with other family members

was sitting in the drawing room and rushed to the verandah

after hearing the sound of firing. This witness further stated

that he saw that Mintu Singh and Ranjeet Jha were firing, due

to which the uncle of this witness, namely, Satyendra Dubey, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

Kishan Kumar, Pankaj Thakur, Manoj Thakur along with one

accused sustained gun-shot injuries and they fell down and

the persons who were firing started fleeing away towards

outside. This witness further deposed that they chased the

accused persons. This witness further stated in his

examination-in-chief that the SHO visited the place and

prepared the seizure list which was signed by him and by

Dayashankar.

21.1. PW-10 has stated in his cross-examination

that he used to do billing work. He was present in the house

when the incident took place. He further stated in his cross-

examination that approximately 10-15 persons had chased the

accused. It is also stated that he had told everything to the

police except for the death of the another accused person at

the place of occurrence itself.

22. PW-12, Bhupendra Prasad Yadav is a

contractor who has stated in his examination-in-chief that he

got to know about the incident next day. He used to do

independent contractual work at Sheohar and Dayashankar

used to take contracts at Sitamarhi. Rajneesh Chandra also

used to take contractual work at Sheohar. This witness further

stated in his examination-in-chief that one day when he had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

got the tender letter and was leaving the office with his

brother, Sidhnath, Rajneesh Chandra and Mintu Singh asked

him to leave the tender contract, snatched the tender paper

and tore them and started beating him. It is further stated by

this witness in his examination-in-chief that he lodged the

FIR against them. However, the accused were released on bail

and they kept on threatening not to take contract tenders

otherwise he would lose his life. Subsequently a plan was

made to kill Satyendra Dubey and he informed Pankaj about

the same. This witness further stated that in the night of 10th

December, 2006 he heard about the murder of Satyendra

Dubey.

22.1 PW-12 has stated in his cross-examination

that he used to take transportation contracts and before the

tender was awarded to him, Rajneesh used to handle such

work. This witness further stated in his cross-examination that

he does not remember exact number and names of people

against whom he had lodged the FIR. He also contradicted the

fact that nobody had threatened him after getting out on bail.

It is also stated that a meeting took place at Chandan's house

in the last week of November or first week of December and

he was not present in that meeting. This witness further stated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

that he was also threatened.

23. PW-4 Dr. Sohan Prasad Chaudhary is the

doctor who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body

of the deceased Pankaj Kumar Thakur. He has found the

following ante mortem injuries on the body:-

(i) Wound of entry 1/4" diameter on left side of chest.

3" lateral to nipple. There was no blackening and

charring but margin of wound abraded and inverted.

(ii) Incised operated stitch wound 7" in size on mid

abdomen (para-medium) & drainage tube incite on left

side of abdomen. On detection all the internal organ

were found pale.

There was fracture of fourth rib on left side &

one bullet was recovered from the chest cavity which

was handed over to accompanied constable. The lung

was lacerated intestine was repaired. Right chamber of

heart was full and left empty. Stomach was empty.

Glader was empty. Details of chest operation may be

asked from Surgeon who treated the patient.

Time elapsed since death between 6 hours to 18 hours.

Cause of death - Hemorrhage and shock due to above

mentioned injuries caused by fire arm weapon." Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

24. P.W. 11 Dr. Mumtaj Ahmad is another doctor

who had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the

deceased Kishun Dubey and Satyendra Dubey. He has found

the following ante mortem injuries on the body of deceased

Kishun Dubey:-

"Blood stain was present on the body.

(i) One oval wound 1/4" in diameter with inverted

mark and burning on the margin was found on front of

chest 2.5" right and just below right nipple. It was only

muscle deep.

(ii) One oval wound 1/4" in diameter with inverted and

burning of the margin was found on front of abdomen

7" above and 1" left. It was going upward functioning

the heart inside the chest and one bullet was recovered

behind the heart.

Fluid blood was found inside the chest and abdominal

cavity.

Deceased died in shock and hemorrhage as a result of

above injuries caused by some fire arms, may be pistol

arms.

Time since death - within 12 to 18 hours."

24.1 He has found the following ante mortem Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

injuries on the body of deceased Satyendra Dubey:-

"(i) One oval wound 1/4" in eymeter with inverted and

buring of the margin was found on the front of right

side of chest 1" above and just on right side of nipple. It

was only muscle deep.

(ii) One oval wound 1/4" in dymeter with inverted and

buring of the margin was found on front of Chest 1/2"

medial and on the level of right nipple. It was only

muscle deep.

(iii) One oval wound ¼" in dymeter with inverted and

buring of 4 the margin was found on the front of left

side of chest 2" above and just medial to left nipple. On

dissection 3rd was fractured with punctured wound in

heart and the Bullet recovered from the back of heart.

(iv) One oval wound 1/4" in dymeter with inverted and

at burning of the margin was found in front of right

side of abdomen 5" below and just right to right nipple.

On dissection punctured wound was found on inside

Liver and one Bullet recovered from behind Liver.

(v) One oval wound 1/4"in dymeter with inverted and

buring of the margin was found on right side of front

of abdomen 2.7" below and 5" right to umblicus.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

On dissection punctured wound were found at three

places in intestinal loop and no projectile was

recovered. It may pass away after striking the vertebra.

(vi) One oval wound ¼" in dymeter was found on front

of the left side of abdomen 7" left and in the line of

umblicus.

It was only muscle deep.

Chest and abdomen cavity was filled with thride blood.

Two Bullets were recovered from the body who handed

over to the accompanied constable in sealed packet.

Caused of Death :- Deceased was caused death due to

shock and haemorrhage caused by some firearm such

as Pistol."

25. PW-14, Sudhir Kumar Singh is the

Investigating Officer of the case and he has deposed in his

examination-in-chief that he got the information about the

incident in the evening of 10.12.2006 at around 07:30 p.m.

through a call and he immediately left for the spot along with

other police personnel and found a dead body of unknown

person in the verandah with blood spread in the area along

with 10 empty 9 mm cartridges. This witness further deposed

that he knew about the incident from the female members of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

the house. He also seized the materials and sent the dead body

for post mortem after preparing the inquest report. This

witness further stated that he found a loaded magazine with

eight live 9 mm cartridges and all the seized materials were

presented under Ext.9 with signatures of two witnesses. This

witness further stated in his examination-in-chief that the

house of the informant is three storied having main gate on

the ground floor which directly leads to verandah where the

incident took place. The Investigating Officer found the dead

body on the northern side of the verandah. The Investigating

Officer further deposed that Pradeep Kumar, SHO,

Mithanpura Police Station, on getting the information, started

checking the vehicles and seized the alleged Tata Sumo PR-1-

AP-3140 along with all the materials from the farm of Zahid

Hussain. This witness further deposed that he recorded the

statement of Zahid Hussain. The brother of the deceased

Shyam Sundar Pathak arrived at the police station and

demanded the dead body for last rites and on formal

documentation, the body was given to him. This witness

further stated that the fingerprint found on the Sumo vehicle

and the fingerprints found on the spot has already been sent to

FSL and report has been prepared in the FSL lab. This Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

witness, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against

Satrudhan Prasad (not named in the FIR), Shyam Sundar

Pathak (deceased), Ranjeet Jha, Sidhnath Parasar and Mintu

Singh.

25.1 The Investigating Officer in his cross-

examination has stated that he along with the Store House In-

Charge had gone to the police store house but found the lock

broken and the exhibits missing from the store house. It is

also stated by this witness in his cross-examination that he

reached the spot at around 07:30 p.m. and had stayed in that

house for approximately four hours and prepared inquest

report of the dead body at around 08:30 p.m. It is further

stated that he had taken the statement of Gajendra Dubey at

around 10:30 p.m. (later on he said 09:00 p.m.). The

Investigating Officer further stated that he had prepared the

first seizure list at around 08:30 p.m. and thereafter he

prepared another seizure list at 09:30 p.m. The Investigating

Officer also stated that PW-1 Shanti Dubey had not told him

that her son had caught hold of one of the accused whose

name was Shyam Sundar Pathak. He also stated that the

witness had not taken the name of Ranjeet Jha in her

statement given before him. This witness further stated that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

PW-2 Karuna Devi had not said that Mintu Singh and Ranjeet

Jha were firing shots and they ran away when people came

there. The Investigating Officer stated that PW-3 had neither

told before him that he had seen Gauri Shankar on the day of

incident nor did he say that his brother was holding one

accused and two people were firing gunshots nor that the

accused died of crossfire. The Investigating Officer further

stated that PW-8 had not told before him that he knew Mintu

Singh and Ranjeet Jha from before. He did not confess that he

knew Siddhanath and Gauri Shankar from before.

25.2. The Investigating Officer in his cross-

examination stated that PW-2 did not talk about identification

of Ranjeet Jha. PW-3 also had not taken name of Ranjeet Jha

firing gunshots. The Investigating Officer further stated in his

cross-examination that he had wrongly written the date as

11.10.2006 in place of 11.12.2006, but did not give any

application before the court to correct the same. It is further

stated that PW-10 had not told him anything associated with

the name of Ranjeet Jha. The Investigating Officer thereafter

states that he had not made any entry in the case diary about

inquest report of the unknown deceased found in the

informant's verandah. The Investigating Officer also denies Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

receiving any report from the FSL about fingerprints or

footprints from the car and the place of occurrence. This

witness further stated in his cross-examination that he had not

entered any criminal antecedent of Ranjeet Jha in the criminal

record diary. The Investigating Officer also denies having

any knowledge about surrender of Ranjeet Jha in court. He

also denies that he had done verification of address of Ranjeet

Jha.

26. DW-1 Shambhu Nath Jha has stated in his

examination-in-chief that accused Ranjeet Jha is his son. He

is B.A. Hon's. There is no case pending against him in the

local police station or in Samastipur district. His son had got

selected in CRP in 2004 while a student. His son was at his

maternal grand parents' home, when it came to the knowledge

that he is wanted in a case. This witness further states in his

examination-in-chief that Inspector Sudhir Kumar Singh

came to his house on 20.12.2006. Only then, he came to know

that his son was wanted in the present case. It was he who

informed that his son was going to be involved in a murder

case at Muzaffarpur. He informed that his son Ranjeet Jha is

going to be implicated. He can be saved only if the witness

pays one lakh rupees. It is further deposed that he showed his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

inability to pay the said amount. By the time police party

reached his home, around 50 local people had gathered there.

On that very day, Ranjeet Jha had gone to his maternal grand

parents' house. He and others told Sudhir Singh that Ranjeet

Jha bears a good character. He has got no criminal antecedent.

Others stated that he may verify this fact from the Mukhiya

and Sarpanch. Police did not record their statements. This

witness further deposed that his son is innocent. He has

surrendered in Court in the interest of justice. He could not

get employed because of his implication in the present case.

26.1. This witness stated in his cross-

examination that his statement was not recorded before the

police. The anticipatory bail petition filed in Patna was

rejected. At that time, a copy of FIR and character certificate

as also paper regarding his appointment was given to the

concerned Advocate. Police Inspector had come to his house

on 20.12.2006. Sudhir Singh intimated that murder of 3-4

persons has been committed in which name of Ranjeet Jha is

coming as a veteran criminal. He does not know Shyam

Sundar Pathak. It is further stated by this witness in his cross-

examination that he or his son had no visiting terms with

Shyam Sundar Pathak. The distance between his house and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

that of Shyam Sundar Pathak is 40-45 kms. Shyam Sundar

Pathak is also a Brahmin. It is not a fact that his son had

brought the motorcycle of the brother of Shyam Sundar

Pathak. It is not a fact that his son Ranjeet Jha and Shyam

Sundar Pathak had come to Muzaffarpur on the said

motorcycle and his son and Shyam Sundar Pathak had gone to

commit the crime where Shyam Sundar Pathak was

apprehended and his son managed to escape. It is not a fact

that Shyam Sundar Pathak's brother, namely, Santosh Kumar

had come to collect the dead body of Shyam Sundar Pathak

and that he told that his brother Shyam Sundar Pathak and

Ranjeet Jha had come to Muzaffarpur on his motorcycle. He

had not lodged any complaint in any Court or at any other

place about the demand of one lakh rupees by the concerned

Daroga. It is not a fact that his son Ranjeet Jha and Shyam

Sundar Pathak were sons of two full sisters. It is not a fact

that he had made false statements to save his son.

27. DW-2, DW-3, DW-4, DW-5, DW-6 and DW-

9 are not material witnesses and they have deposed about the

strike by the truck drivers which has been called on against

low wages for which a meeting was held on 10.12.2006 at the

residence of Mintu Singh which was called off after an Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

increment of Rs.300/- being promised.

28. DW-7 Dhruv Nath Kr. @ Mintu Singh has

stated in his examination-in-chief that he got to know about

the transportation contract of SFC through Pappu Singh,

whom he met recently for business purposes. Thereafter in

2004 he started the contract for transportation at SFC,

Sitamarhi which gave rise to animosity between him and the

deceased Satyendra Dubey and his partner Bhupendra Yadav.

It is further stated by Mintu Singh that the opposite party

lodged an FIR in 2005 against him, his brother and Late

father which led to loss of the contractual work. Satyendra

Dubey and Bhupendra Yadav shifted their place of work to

Sheohar and Muzaffarpur. In 2006, he and his brother

purchased tender paper for Sheohar. This witness further

stated in his examination-in-chief that he or his brother

Sidhnath Parasar had no concern with the FIR of the present

case or any accused of the present case. He or any of his

family members had no concern or connection with the

family of the deceased or his family members or the

informant. It is a fact that FIR accused Rajesh Choudhary,

Tuntun Choudhary, Sunil Singh etc. were relatives of

deceased Satyendra Dubey and the informant Gajendra Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

Dubey. It is further deposed that he has falsely been

implicated as an accused in the present case and he is

innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police.

28.1. In his cross-examination by prosecution, he

has stated that he does not know the name of the owner of the

shop at Kalyani Chowk, but his elder brother knows.

Previously, he worked in the said shop with his elder brother.

It is further stated by this witness in his cross-examination

that he does not remember that in connection with Dumra PS

Case No.55/2006, four persons had been apprehended on spot

while firing on Bhupendra Yadav, but none of his family

members was apprehended. It is not the fact that he was

making false statement to save Satyendra Dubey etc.

28.2. On recall in defence (Chief Examination),

he stated that he maintained a register of truck plying in

connection with contract work.

29. DW-8 Nand Ji Singh has stated in his cross-

examination that he took charge of the investigation of the

crime no.214/06 after the transfer of previous Investigating

Officer Sudhir Kumar. When he was taking charge of the

investigation, the matter was in control of CID Inspector Md.

Khalin. After taking charge, the I.O. took statements of Shiv Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

Sundar Devi, Md. Murtaza, Rehmat Ali, Ramdeep Sharma,

Mahesh Sharma and Viru Yadav @ Bharat Yadav. It is further

stated that he along with Md. Khalil went to the said Kathal

Bari locality wherein, on inquiry, they were informed that on

the date of incident, i.e., 10.12.2006, a meeting was held

between truck owners and truck drivers. He took statement of

witness Manoj Kumar Thakur who said that on 10.12.2006 at

about 07:00 p.m., he had gone to meet the family of

Satyendra Dubey. Shortly thereafter, two persons got the gate

opened and started firing from verandah during which he

received gunshot on his right armpit and left hand due to

which he got injured and fell down unconscious. After five

days when he regained his consciousness, he came to know

that the miscreants had fired on Satyendra Dubey, Miththu

and Pankaj who died later on. Both the miscreants were

young.

29.1. In his cross-examination, the I.O. stated that he

did not know as to how and why the case was transferred to

CID as he joined one month after the said transfer. He further

stated that he could not elicit any reliable information as to

whether there was any strike in Darbhanga district on the date

of incident and when he visited Kathal Bari locality in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

Darbhanga, he did not find Mintu Singh in the said residence

and was informed that he had vacated the said residence, as

described in para-26. The I.O. stated that, in the case diary, at

serial No.99, a brief detail of both the previous incidents has

been written and at para-4 it is written that the accused were

found fleeing by vehicle. He did not take signatures of the

witnesses on their statements. He denied the suggestion that

he had conducted the faulty investigation conspiring with the

defence side. He had not arrested anybody.

30. DW-10 and DW-11, namely, Sanjeev Ranjan

Mishra and Mukesh Kumar respectively have not stated

anything as regards the present incident. DW-10 has just

deposed about the ownership of the house at Darbhanga and

the tenancy of Mintu Singh of the same premises on the

relevant date. DW-11 stated that Mintu Singh had taken

contract in his name for Bihar State Food Supply Limited. He

has verified the papers as exhibits D series.

31. From the aforesaid evidence led by the

prosecution as well as the defence before the Trial Court, it is

revealed that in the occurrence in question 3 persons lost their

lives and one of the assailants also died in the said incident.

Thus, in the occurrence in question all together 4 persons died Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

and one person sustained injuries. From the deposition of Dr.

Sohan Prasad Chaudhary, P.W. 4, and Dr. Mumtaj Ahmad,

P.W. 11, who have conducted post mortem of the dead body

of the deceased Pankaj Kumar Thakur, Satyendra Dubey and

Kishan Dubey, it is proved that the death of the deceased was

caused by haemorrhage and shock due to the injuries caused

by firearm weapon. Thus, the victims sustained fatal injuries

which were all ante mortem in nature and confirming death of

victims, homicidal in nature.

32. It further transpires from the evidence that

P.W. 13 Gajendra Dubey, the informant, who was father of the

deceased Kishan Dubey and brother of deceased Satyendra

Dubey, has given the deposition that when he reached the

hospital, he found that injured Satyendra Dubey and Kishan

Dubey were taken to the operation theatre and were declared

'dead'. Thereafter, injured Pankaj Kumar Thakur and Manoj

Thakur, who were sitting in the Verandah, had named Mintu

Singh and Ranjeet Jha and deceased assailant as the persons

who fired from their firearms upon 4 persons sitting in the

Verandah at the relevant time. He also described the place of

occurrence. He has stated that injured Pankaj Kumar Thakur

gave his oral dying declaration before the informant in the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

hospital, as a result of which P.W. 13 came to know about the

names of the assailants and, therefore, when the informant

reached to his house from the hospital, he gave fardbeyan

before the police officer present in the house and in the first

part of the fardbeyan he has stated about the information

given on telephone by Sonu wherein he got information about

the three unknown persons. However, when he had gone to

the hospital, he got the names of the assailants from Pankaj

Kumar Thakur and Manoj Thakur. In the second part of the

fardbeyan, the said witness, i.e. informant, has referred the

names of the assailants. Thus, we are of the view that the case

put forward by the informant cannot be doubted.

32.1 It is also required to be noted that the

testimony of P.W. 13 remained unchallenged in his cross-

examination as the defence while cross-examining did not

suggest to the said witness about the condition of the

deceased and P.W. 4 Dr. Sohan Prasad Choudhary, who had

performed post mortem of the dead body of the deceased, has

not been cross-examined. Further, P.W. 14 Sudhir Kumar

Singh, the Investigating Officer who recorded fardbeyan of

the informant at about 9:00 p.m. on the date of occurrence at

his residence, i.e. the place of occurrence, when he returned Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

from hospital and based thereupon the F.I.R. was registered at

10:30 p.m. containing names of accused persons as disclosed

by deceased Pankaj Kumar Thakur. Thus, we are of the view

that when the F.I.R. came to be registered immediately after

the occurrence on the basis of information given by injured

Pankaj Kumar Thakur and Manoj Kumar Thakur to the

informant, the deposition given by P.W. 13, the informant, is

not required to be discarded.

33. P.W. 5 Manoj Kumar Thakur, though was

declared hostile in respect of identity of the accused persons,

he supported the prosecution version to the extent of manner

in which the occurrence took place, the number of persons

involved in committing the offence and opening of

indiscriminate firing by the assailants as well as the injuries

suffered by himself and the other deceased. It is pertinent to

note that defence has not cross-examined the said witness on

the aspect of narration of said occurrence by Pankaj Kumar

Thakur to P.W. 13, i.e. the informant.

34. Injured Pankaj Kumar Thakur, who

subsequently succumbed to the injuries, at the earliest

opportunity, gave his oral dying declaration before P.W. 13,

the informant, before his death explaining the sequence of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

events taken place which stands established by ocular

evidence of other prosecution-witnesses which is also

reliable, creditworthy and cogent as the said injured was in a

conscious state and was in a position to speak.

35. P.W. 14, the Investigating Officer, after

recording the statement of the informant and registration of

the F.I.R. reached hospital and recorded statements of injured

Pankaj Kumar Thakur in the hospital and the said witness

stated that Pankaj Kumar Thakur was conscious and in a

stable state of mind wherein he attributed the role to Mintu

Singh, Ranjeet Jha and one another for firing from their

firearms upon the persons sitting in the Verandah. It is

relevant to note that nothing has been suggested to this

witness, i.e. the I.O., about the medical condition of injured

Pankaj Kumar Thakur who subsequently died.

36. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 8

and P.W. 10 being eye-witnesses to the occurrence, their

evidence carries evidentiary value of ocular evidence and all

the aforesaid witnesses have specifically deposed about the

subject of the incident, i.e. time and place of occurrence,

number of assailants, type of weapon used and injuries

suffered by the victims, including injuries sustained by P.W. 5 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

and have stood their ground during the cross-examination and

have further corroborated each other on a relevant material

cause. The testimony of the aforesaid witnesses clearly

establish the motive, intention and overt act played by each of

the appellants in committing the multiple murder of the

victims.

37. Merely because the aforesaid witnesses are

family members or related witnesses, their deposition cannot

be discarded as their presence at the place of occurrence was

quite natural. If the deposition of the interested and related

witnesses is trustworthy, such deposition is required to be

accepted.

37.1 P.W. 9 Awadhesh Kumar Singh is an

independent witness who deposed about the presence of a

white coloured Tata Sumo Victa near the place of occurrence.

The said witness further proved presence of accused Mintu

Singh and Siddhanath Parasar before the occurrence and

further saw Mintu going towards the place of occurrence with

2 to 3 persons. Further deposition of P.W. 3 and P.W. 8, who

had chased the appellants/convicts Mintu Singh and Ranjeet

Kumar Jha after the occurrence, i.e. their return to the second

place of occurrence i.e. near Krishna Sweets where another Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

appellant Siddhanath Parasar and Gauri Shankar Singh were

present and escaped in Tata Sumo.

38. So far as the motive for commission of the

offence on the part of the accused is concerned, it is the

specific case of the prosecution that due to business rivalry

between the parties there was a dispute going on and,

ultimately, the accused persons, by hatching a conspiracy,

decided to eliminate the rival in the business, i.e. Satyendra

Dubey in order to settle their score with him and, therefore,

committed the heinous crime in which four persons, including

one of the assailants, died. The prosecution had examined the

witnesses from which it is duly proved that there was a

dispute with regard to the contract for food transportation at

S.F.C., Sitamarhi.

39. The defence has also examined 11 defence

witnesses with a view to prove the defence with regard to the

plea of alibi and false implication. However, we are of the

view that from the deposition of the defence witnesses it

cannot be established that the concerned appellants/convicts

were not present at the place of occurrence and the present is

a case of false implication. As discussed hereinabove, there

are prosecution-witnesses who have supported the case of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

prosecution, who have seen the concerned appellants/convicts

at the place of occurrence and injured Pankaj Kumar Thakur

gave oral dying declaration before P.W. 13, the informant,

which was immediately conveyed to the concerned police

officer, P.W. 14, while giving the fardbeyan.

40. From the aforesaid discussion, we are of the

considered view that the prosecution has proved the case

against the appellants/convicts beyond reasonable doubt and,

therefore, the learned Trial Court has not committed any error

while passing the impugned order and, hence, we are of the

view that no interference is required in the present appeals.

41. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 643 of

2013, 528 of 2013, 591 of 2013 and 730 of 2013 are

dismissed.

42. It appears that appellant/accused Ranjeet

Kumar Jha @ Ranjeet Jha in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 643 of

2013, is already in custody.

42.1 Appellant Gauri Shankar Singh @ Bhola in

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 528 of 2013, appellant Sidhnath

Parasar in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.591 of 2013 and appellant

Mintu Singh @ Dhruv Nath Mishra @ Dhruv Nath Kumar @

Dhruv Nath Parasar in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 730 of 2013 are Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.643 of 2013 dt.19-10-2023

on bail. On convictions as recorded above, their bail-bonds

stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the

jail authority/concerned Court on or before 1st of December,

2023. If any of the above named appellants/accused fails to

surrender before 1st of December, 2023 for any reasons,

learned Trial Court to take appropriate legal steps to secure

their arrest.

43. Since the sole appellant of Cr. Appeal (D.B.)

No. 608 of 2013 namely Vinay Kumar Sharma has died

during the pendency of the appeal, Cr. Appal (D.B.) No. 608

of 2013 stands abated.

(Vipul M. Pancholi, J)

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J: I agree.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

K.C.Jha/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                25.09.2023
Uploading Date          19.10.2023
Transmission Date       19.10.2023