Patna High Court
Ram Babu Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 8 January, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.885 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-1986 Thana- VAISALI GRP CASE District- Vaishali
======================================================
Ram Babu Singh Son of Late Basawan Singh resident of village- Ratan, P.S.-
Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 886 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-1986 Thana- VAISALI GRP CASE District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. RANJEET CHOUDHARY @ RANJIT CHAUDHARY Son of Sri Shivnath
Choudhary @ Lala Choudhary
2. Uday Kumar Singh @ Uday Singh Son of Late Bindeshwari Singh
3. Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Sanjay Singh Son of Late Kapildeo Singh
4. Sachchidanand Singh Son of Late Chandrika Singh @ Chandrika Prasad
Singh All resident of village- Ratanpura, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District-
Vaishali.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 24 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-1986 Thana- VAISALI GRP CASE District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Kameshwar Singh Son of Yogeshwari Singh
2. Sunil Kumar Singh Son of Kameshwar Singh Both are residents of Vill-
Ratanpura,P.S-Bhagwanpur,District-Vaishali
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 885 of 2014)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
2/23
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 886 of 2014)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 24 of 2015)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, 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 : 08-01-2024
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.') against the judgment of
conviction dated 01.11.2014 and order of sentence dated
07.11.2014
rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII,
Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1987, arising
out of Muzaffarpur Rail P.S. Case No.78 of 1986, by which the
appellants/convicts namely, Uday Singh, Ranjit Chaudhary,
Sachchidanand Singh, Sunil Kumar Singh, Sanjay Singh and
Ram Babu Singh have been convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-
each for the offence punishable under Section-302 of I.P.C. read
with Section-149 of I.P.C. The fine amount which has been
imposed will be payable to the legal heirs of the deceased
Nawal Kishore Chaudhary.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
2. The factual matrix of the present case is as
under:
2.1. On 09.10.1986, at about 07:00 PM, the
informant, Shatrughan Choudhary (PW-8), accompanied by his
younger brother, Parmanand Choudhary (PW-7), elder brother,
Nawal Kishore Choudhary, Shiv Nath Singh, Brij Nandan
Choudhary, Balram Choudhary (PW-2), Nanda Choudhary (PW-
4) and Nagendra Choudhary (PW-6), returning to their
respective houses after seeing fair at Bhagwanpur Belhatta and
were one furlong short of south Gali No. 33 of Bhagwanpur
Station, they saw their co-villagers, Kameshwar @ Bhola Singh,
Sunil Singh, Ram Babu Singh, Ram Surat Choudhary, Ranjeet
Choudhary, Sachchidanand Singh, Uday Singh, Sanjay Singh,
all armed with country-made pistols, Basawan Singh with Chura
(dagger), Umashankar Singh with small danda, Kapildeo Singh
and Surendra Singh, armed with lathis, near the house of one
Arun Mukherjee and, on seeing Shatrughan Choudhary and his
companions, accused Umashankar Singh incited his associates
to avenge blood with blood, which will put an end to all sort of
litigation. Following the instigation so given, by accused
Umashankar Singh, accused Kameshwar Singh @ Bhola Singh
fired on Nawal Kishore Singh and the bullet hit on the right ear
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
of Nawal Kishore Singh, and accused Sunil Singh also fired and
the bullet hit Nawal Kishore Singh, just above his left ear. On
sustaining bullet injuries, Nawal Kishore Singh yelled in pain.
Thereafter, accused Ram Babu Singh shot from his pistol on the
left waist of Nawal Kishore Singh and accused Ram Surat
Choudhary fired, while exhorting others to kill Nawal Kishore
Choudhary, from his pistol, the bullet hit Nawal Kishore
Choudhary, on his left buttock. The bullet fired by accused
Ranjeet Choudhary, hit on the right thigh of Nawal Kishore
Choudhary. Accused Uday Singh, Sachchidanand Singh and
Sanjay Singh, too, fired on Nawal Kishore Choudhary; whereas
accused Basawan Singh assaulted Nawal Kishore Singh, with
his dagger, below the waist of Nawal Kishore Choudhary and,
then, the accused person fled away.
2.2. The reason behind the occurrence, according to
PW-8, is the old land enmity with accused-appellant
Kameshwar Singh and others.
2.3. On receiving the information about the
occurrence, police from Bhagwanpur Police Station arrived at
the private clinic of Dr. Jaiswal, on 09.10.1986, at 10:30 PM,
and recorded, in the form of fardbeyan, the information given by
Shatrughan Choudhary (PW-8) about the occurrence. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
information, so given by PW-8 was forwarded to the Rail Police
Station, Muzaffarpur for institution of the case.
2.4. Treating the said fardbeyan as First
Information Report, Muzaffarpur Rail Police Station Case No.
78 of 1986 was registered, under Sections 302, 307/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, against 12 accused persons, namely, (i)
Kameshwar Singh, (ii) Sunil Kumar Singh, (iii) Ram Babu
Singh, (iv) Ram Surat Choudhary, (v) Ranjeet Choudhary, (vi)
Umashankar Singh, (vii) Sachchidanand Singh, (viii) Kapildeo
Singh, (ix) Sanjay Singh, (x) Uday Singh, (xi) Basawan Singh
and (xi) Surendra Singh.
2.5. During investigation, inquest was held over the
said dead body, which was also subjected to post mortem
examination, and, on completion of investigation, charge sheet
was laid against accused persons, namely, (i) Basawan Singh,
(ii) Kameshwar Singh, (iii) Sunil Kumar Singh, (iv) Ram Babu
Singh, (v) Ram Surat Choudhary, (vi) Ranjeet Choudhary, (vii)
Sachchidanand Singh, (viii) Sanjay Singh, (ix) Uday Singh,
under Sections 147/148/149/302 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
2.6. At the trial, when a charge, under Section 302
read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
accused-appellants, namely, (i) Kameshwar Singh, (ii) Sunil
Kumar Singh, (iii) Ram Babu Singh, (iv) Ram Surat Choudhary,
(v) Ranjeet Choudhary, (vi) Sachchidanand Singh, (vii) Sanjay
Singh, (viii) Uday Singh, (ix) Basawan Singh and (x) Surendra
Singh, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty thereto. When
charges, under Section 302 read with Section 149 and 302 read
with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, were framed against
accused-appellant, namely, (i) Uma Shankar Singh, (ii)
Kapildeo Singh and (iii) Surendra Singh, they, too, pleaded not
guilty to the charges so framed.
2.7. During trial, accused Ram Surat Choudhary
and Basawan Choudhary died.
2.8. In support of their case, prosecution examined
altogether 13 (thirteen) witnesses. The accused persons were,
then, examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and, in their examinations aforementioned, the
accused persons denied that they had committed the offences,
which were alleged to have been committed by them, the case of
the defence being that of denial. The defence has adduced ten
witness.
2.9. Thereafter, the Trial Court vide order dated
13.01.2014 convicted all the accused under Sections 302 read
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as
I.P.C.). However, the Trial Court has acquitted accused Uma
Shankar Prasad Singh of the charges framed against him. Order
of sentence was passed on 18.01.2014. Against the said order of
conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the
confict/appellants preferred Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 102 of 2014,
196 of 2014 and 135 of 2014.
2.10. A Division Bench of this Court vide C.A.V.
judgment dated 16.05.2014 partly allowed the aforesaid appeals
and order of conviction and sentence passed by the concerned
Trial Court was set aside. At the same time, the Division Bench
of this Court remanded the case to the Trial Court for the
purpose of obtaining presence of the Doctor and the
Investigating Officer as witnesses and direction was given to
examine them in accordance with law and to decide the case in
light of the evidence which may surface on record.
2.11. After the matter was remanded back to the
Trial Court, the prosecution had examined additional
prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 14 Dr. Vinita Kumari, P.W. 15
Ashok Kumar and P.W. 16 Bhupesh Kumar Singh.
2.12. After the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses was over, the Trial Court once again passed the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
impugned order of conviction and order of sentence dated
01.11.2014 and 07.11.2014, whereby the present appellants have
been convicted, as observed hereinabove, against which now the
present appellants have preferred the present appeals.
3. Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajay Thakur and Mr. Rajesh Kumar
for the appellants and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh for the
respondent-State in all the appeals.
4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellants/convicts have mainly submitted that in the first round
of litigation, when the appellants had challenged the order of
conviction dated 13.01.2014 and order of sentence dated
18.01.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court, while setting
aside the said conviction and sentence, the Division Bench of
this Court has made certain observations. Learned counsels for
the appellants have referred the said observation made by the
Division Bench of this Court.
5. This Court, in para 50, has observed that the
copy of the F.I.R. of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1986 was
not brought on record. This Court has further observed that the
Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of P.W.8
(Shatrudhan Chaudhary), carried out the investigation and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
prepared the inquest report. There is no description of the injury
found on the dead body of the deceased, whereas in the other
copy of the inquest report, injuries found have been mentioned.
Thus, the Division Bench of this Court thought it fit to remand
the matter back to the learned Trial Court to obtain the presence
of the Doctor and the Investigating Officer concerned as
witnesses. It is also submitted that direction was also given to
the prosecution to examine these witnesses and thereafter the
learned Trial Court has to decide the case in accordance with
law.
6. Learned counsels for the appellants would
further submit that after the matter was remanded back to the
learned Trial Court for specific purpose, the prosecution has
examined P.W. 14 Dr. Vinita Kumari, who is daughter of the
deceased. However, she has not identified the signature of her
father nor she was aware of anything about the post mortem
report. It is further submitted that P.W. 15 Ashok Kumar was
also examined by the prosecution with a view to prove the post
mortem report. However, the said witness was working as an X-
ray technician and he could only identify the signature of the
Doctor and he was not aware of the contents of the post mortem
report.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
7. Learned counsels would thereafter submit that
P.W. 16 Bhupesh Kumar Singh was the officer who was posted
at Bhagwanpur Police Station and he has stated that the
fardbeyan of Shatrudhan Chaudhary (informant) was written by
Rampujan Singh. Learned counsels have referred the aforesaid
deposition and submitted that, in fact, the aforesaid witness
admitted that there are discrepancies in the two carbon copies
and one photo copy of the inquest report. It is submitted that
even the contents are different in carbon copies of the inquest
report. It is further submitted that even the said officer has also
failed to produce a copy of F.I.R. of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case
No.101 of 1986.
8. Learned counsels would submit that even after
the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court, the
prosecution has not brought on record copy of the aforesaid
F.I.R. of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1986 registered with
Bhagwanpur Police Station.
8.1. At this stage, learned counsels have referred
the reasoning recorded by the learned Trial Court and thereafter
contended that Trial Court has made certain presumptions which
is not permissible. Trial Court has also observed that F.I.R.
bearing Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1986 is also not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
brought on record, despite which the learned Trial Court has
recorded the order of conviction. Learned counsels, therefore,
urged that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the
appellants beyond reasonable doubt, despite which the learned
Trial Court has recorded the impugned order and, therefore, the
same be quashed and set aside.
9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed
these appeals filed by the appellants/convicts. Learned A.P.P.
has submitted that there are eye-witnesses to the occurrence in
question and merely because copy of F.I.R. of Bhagwanpur P.S.
Case No.101 of 1986 is not brought on record and merely
because there are certain discrepancies in the inquest report,
benefit of the same cannot be given to the appellants/accused.
Learned A.P.P., therefore, urged that the present appeals be
dismissed.
10. We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also
perused the material placed on record. It would emerge from the
record that on 09.10.1986 at about 7:00 p.m. the occurrence in
question took place for which a fardbeyan was given by
informant Shatrudhan Chaudhary at 8:30 p.m. on 09.10.1986 at
State Dispensary, Bhagwanpur. On the basis of the said
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
information, Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1986 came to be
registered and inquest report of the deceased was also prepared
wherein there is a reference of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101
of 1986. Similarly, in post mortem report of the deceased, there
was reference of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1986.
However, it is further revealed that formal F.I.R. came to be
registered on 10.10.1986 at 11:00 a.m. i.e. Muzaffarpur Rail P.S.
Case No.78 of 1986. From the record, it would also reveal that
during the course of the trial, the prosecution had examined 13
witnesses and thereafter the learned Trial Court passed the order
of conviction dated 13.01.2014 and order of sentence was
passed on 18.01.2014 whereby all the accused, except one
accused Uma Shankar Singh, were convicted for the offence
punishable under Section-302 read with 149 of I.P.C. Against
the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the
appellants/convicts preferred Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.102 of 2014
and allied appeals. The Division Bench of this Court vide its
judgment dated 16.05.2014 partly allowed the said appeals and
matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for specific
purpose, i.e. with a direction to obtain the presence of the
Doctor and the Investigating Officer concerned as witnesses and
examine them in accordance with law and thereafter to pass
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
appropriate order in accordance with law.
11. The Division Bench of this Court has observed
in para Nos.11 to 16 as under:
"11. While considering the present appeals, what
attracts the attention, most prominently, is that in the case at hand,
the doctor, who had conducted post mortem examination on the
dead body of the said deceased and determined the cause of his
death, was not examined nor was examined the Investigating
Officer.
12. As per the post mortem examination report, the
death has been caused by fire-arm injury, which is described below.
"Lacerated circular injury, ½" diameter, with inverted
margin, penetrating into the skull bone making a hole of ½"
diameter, associated with the fracture of the skull bone into
small fragment crossing the whole of the brain walls and
again damaging the left side of the occipital bone having a
circular hole of ¼" associated with lacerated would on the
skin just about the back of the neck and behind the left ear
with averted margin, skin in torn in star shaped fashion
having four flaps. This is an injury of fire arm having the
wound of entry on the right parietal bone and the wound of
exit on the occipital bone behind the left ear. The bullet has
passed through skull damaging the skull bones and the brain
matter."
13. Since the defence has not disputed the factum of
murder, we, now, proceed to examine whether the time of the
occurrence, the place of the occurrence and the manner of the
occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution, have been proved
beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. While considering the above aspects of the
present appeals, we may point out that the informant (PW 8) has
deposed that Parmanand Choudhary (PW 7) was together with him,
when he, accompanied by the said deceased, was returning after
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
seeing Fair at Bhagwanpur Belhatta in the evening of 09.10.1986.
According to this witness, all the accused persons apprehended the
prosecution party when they were returning from the fair at about 7
PM and on the instigation of accused Umashankar Singh, accused
Kameshwar Singh @ Bhola Singh fired at the right side of head of
the deceased Nawal Kishore Choudhary, whereafter accused Sunil
Singh fired around left ear of deceased Nawal Kishore Choudhary.
Accused Ram Babu Singh fired from the pistol above the left waist
of the said deceased. In the meantime, accused Ram Surat
Choudhary also fired from his pistol from back which caused injury
on the hip of Nawal Kishore Choudhary. Accused Basawan Singh
struck with dagger causing injury below the waist of the said
deceased. The accused persons after ensuring that the said deceased
is dead, they fled away from the place of occurrence.
15. Close to the heels of PW 8 are the evidence of
PW 2, PW 5 and PW 7.
16. From the cross-examinations of PW 2, PW 5,
PW 7 and PW 8, nothing could be elicited by the defence to show
that what these witnesses had deposed was untrue or false. The
evidence of PW 2, PW 5, PW 7 and PW 8 cannot, therefore, be
taken to have been shaken by cross-examination. Their evidence,
thus, remained wholly intact."
12. It is pertinent to note that the Division Bench of
this Court has discussed the evidence in detail with regard to the
deposition given by P.W. Nos. 2 to 8, who are eye-witnesses to
the occurrence. The Division Bench of this Court has observed
in para 10 that P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 have been declared hostile and
P.W. 3 died during pendency of the trial and, therefore, he could
not be cross-examined.
13. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
aforesaid finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court
was not challenged by the appellants/convicts before the higher
forum and, therefore, in the present appeals, we are not
repeating the contents of the deposition of the aforesaid
witnesses.
14. At this stage, it is also pertinent to note that the
Division Bench of this Court has remanded the matter back to
the Trial Court for a very limited purpose i.e. with a direction to
the Trial Court to obtain the presence of the Doctor and the
Investigating Officer concerned as witnesses and direction was
also given to examine them in accordance with law and
thereafter to decide the case on merits.
15. Thus, in the present appeals, we have to
consider the developments which have taken place after the
matter was remanded back to the learned Trial Court by this
Court.
16. Thereafter, as observed hereinabove, the
prosecution had examined P.W. Nos. 14, 15 and 16 before the
Trial Court and once again now the Trial Court has passed the
order impugned in the present appeals against which the present
appeals are filed.
17. As observed hereinabove, as per the direction
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
given by this Court, the prosecution has now examined P.W.
Nos. 14, 15 and 16. P.W. 14 Dr. Vinita Kumari has stated in
examination-in-chief that on 10.10.1986 her father was posted
in Sadar Hospital, Hajipur. He died in the year 1988. She was
not aware about the fact whether her father has written the post
mortem report, Exhibit-4, or not. She could not identify the
signature of her father.
18. P.W. 15 Ashok Kumar has stated in
examination-in-chief that he was posted in Sadar Hospital,
Hajipur in 1986. He has further deposed that the post mortem of
the deceased Nawal Kishore Chaudhary of Muzaffarpur Rail
P.S. Case No. 78 of 1986 was conducted by Doctor S. Kumar.
The said witness has identified the signature of the said doctor
and the post mortem report (Exhibit-4). However, during cross-
examination, the said witness has stated that he was working as
an X-ray technician in referral hospital and he was not aware as
to what is written in the post mortem report.
19. P.W. 16 Bhupesh Kumar Singh has stated in
examination-in-chief that on 09.10.1986 he was posted at
Bhagwanpur Police Station. At 8:30 p.m., fardbeyan of
Shatrudhan Chaudhary was recorded in the dispensary of
Government Doctor S.K. Jaiswal. The said fardbeyan was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
recorded in the handwriting of Rampujan Singh. Fardbeyan was
recorded by Satya Narayan Mandal. This witness has also stated
about the fact that inquest report of the deceased was prepared
and carbon copy was also procured. He has further stated that in
the carbon copy of the inquest report, Column-6, 8 and 9 are
written in his handwriting. He has further stated that in the said
inquest report 'Bhagwanpur' was scored through and substituted
by 'Muzaffarpur Rail P.S.' and the said handwriting are not of
the said witness or that of Satya Narayan Mandal. He has further
stated that case diary, para-9, is also a carbon copy of inquest
report and the carbon copy was also signed by him. In the said
copy also, in Column 1 'Bhagwanpur' has been scored through
and substituted by 'Muzaffarpur Rail P.S.'. The said carbon
copy, Column 6 was written by him. He has further stated that
though both are carbon copies, the contents are different and
who has written the same he is not aware.
19.1 During cross-examination, the said witness
has stated that inquest report was prepared in three copies. There
were two carbon copies and one photo copy. Once again he has
admitted that in one carbon copy, Column-9, was written by
him. However, the other columns were not written by him.
Column-6 is also not written by him. He is not aware about the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
fact that Column Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 8 are written by a third person.
In the document, Exhibit-2, Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of
1986 is also scored through. He has admitted in cross-
examination that both the inquest reports are in his handwriting.
However, there are apparent discrepancies in the said reports.
He has further admitted in para-34 that in both the inquest
reports name of the witnesses are transposed vice versa. He has
also stated that in the post mortem report there was a reference
of P.S. Case No.101 of 1986.
20. On the basis of the aforesaid, further evidence
led by the prosecution after the matter was remanded back to the
learned Trial Court, the Trial Court has recorded the finding in
Para-54 of the impugned judgment that on behalf of the
prosecution, F.I.R. of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1986
has not been brought on record. It has been further observed that
certified copy of G.R. register of C.J.M., Vaishali of
Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1986 has been brought on
record, which shows that case has been registered under
Sections-448, 341, 325, 323 read with 34 I.P.C. and the
informant is Nakul Prasad Sahi and the accused are also
different. The learned Trial Court has further observed that P.W.
16 could not properly clarify as to how in seizure list 101 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
1986 has been written by him as also who deleted Bhagwanpur
and Case No.101 of 1986 from the inquest report. So, there is
discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. 16. It was further observed
that it was the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the
F.I.R. of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1986, but the same
has not been produced by the prosecution. Further, in para-55 of
the judgment, the Trial Court has observed that there is no doubt
that there is a mystery as to why Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101
of 1986 has been written at various places. Further, it has been
observed that there is no doubt that there is difference in the
inquest report. After recording the aforesaid, Trial Court has
presumed certain aspects. We are of the view that such a
presumption is not permissible.
21. We have also re-appreciated the evidence of the
prosecution-witnesses and more particularly the witnesses who
have been examined by the prosecution after the matter was
remanded back to the learned Trial Court. We are of the view
that the prosecution has failed to prove the contents of the post
mortem report and also failed to produce the copy of
Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1986 before the Court. P.W.
16 has admitted certain aspects during the course of his
deposition that contents of inquest report in two carbon copies
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
are different, though he has signed both the inquest reports. He
has also admitted that in the inquest report in two carbon copies
and photo copy as well as in the post mortem report, initially
there was a reference with regard to Bhagwanpur P.S. Case
No.101 of 1986. However, the same has been scored through
and substituted by Muzaffarpur Rail P.S. Case No.78 of 1986.
He is not aware as to who has written the same. There is no
initial made at the time of scoring and overwriting. It is the
specific defence of the appellants/convicts before the learned
Trial Court that initially the fardbeyan was recorded at State
Dispensary, Bhagwanpur on 09.10.1986 at 20:30 hours. On the
basis of the same, Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1986 was
registered. The Investigating Officer has, therefore, started the
investigation and prepared the inquest report and dead body was
sent for the purpose of conducting post mortem and, therefore,
in the aforesaid documents, there was a reference of
Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1986. However, thereafter
formal F.I.R. was registered on the next day at 11:00 a.m. before
Muzaffarpur Rail Police Station which was registered as
Muzaffarpur Rail P.S. Case No.78 of 1986 and, therefore, the
contents of the original F.I.R. bearing Bhagwanpur P.S. Case
No.101 of 1986 was different. Therefore, the same was not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
brought on record. It is also the case of the defence that along
with the formal F.I.R. registered with Muzaffarpur Rail Police
Station, fardbeyan of the informant was attached wherein there
is a reference with regard to giving the fardbeyan by the
informant at the clinic of the Doctor of the Government Hospital
and not at the State Dispensary, Bhagwanpur.
22. At this stage, we may also note that while
remanding the matter back to the learned Trial Court, the
Division Bench of this Court has observed in Para-50 of the
order of remand dated 16.05.2014 that copy of F.I.R. of
Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1986 has not been brought on
record.
23. Even after the matter was remanded back, as
observed hereinabove, the copy of the F.I.R. of Bhagwanpur
P.S. Case No.101 of 1986 has not been brought on record and,
therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has suppressed the
same. Even otherwise, P.W. 16 has specifically admitted about
the discrepancies in the two carbon copies of the same inquest
report. This cannot be said to be mere lacuna or faulty
investigation by the investigating agency, as contended by
learned A.P.P.
24. Suffice it to say that though chance was given
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
by the Division Bench of this Court to the prosecution to lead
the evidence with a view to bring on record copy of the F.I.R. of
Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1986 and with a view to prove
the contents of the post mortem report, the prosecution has
failed to prove the same. Thus, we are of the view that the
prosecution has failed to prove the case against the
appellants/convicts beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
appellants/convicts are required to be acquitted of the charges
levelled against them.
25. The impugned judgment of conviction dated
01.11.2014 and order of sentence dated 07.11.2014 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Vaishali at Hajipur, in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1987, (arising out of
Muzaffarpur Rail P.S. Case No. 78 of 1986 dated 10.10.1986) is
quashed and set aside. The appellants, namely, Ram Babu
Singh, Ranjeet Choudhary @ Ranjit Chaudhary, Uday Kumar
Singh @ Uday Singh, Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Sanjay Singh,
Sachchidanand Singh, Kameshwar Singh and Sunil Kumar
Singh are acquitted of the charges levelled against them by the
learned Trial Court.
26. Since the appellants namely, Ram Babu Singh,
Ranjeet Choudhary @ Ranjit Chaudhary, Uday Kumar Singh @
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.885 of 2014 dt.08-01-2024
Uday Singh, Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Sanjay Singh,
Sachchidanand Singh and Sunil Kumar Singh are on bail, they
are discharged of the liabilities of their bail-bonds. Since
appellant namely, Kameshwar Singh in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 24
of 2015 is in jail, he is directed to be released forthwith, if his
presence is not required in any other case.
27. Accordingly, all the appeals stand allowed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J)
( Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
K.C.Jha/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 10.01.2024
Transmission Date 10.01.2024
