Patna High Court
Manan Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 13 November, 2024
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1153 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-1997 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran
======================================================
Manan Ram Son of Late Nagina Prasad Kanauj R/o Shrirampur, P.S.- Manjhi,
Dist.- Saran
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Patna
2. Sunil Ram Son of Ganesh Ram R/o Shrirampur, P.S.- Manjhi, Dist.- Saran
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kr Singh No.1, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, Addl PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 13-11-2024
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh No. 1, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal against acquittal has been filed
against the judgment dated 17.08.2023 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 488 of
2004, CIS No. 1178 of 2014 arising out of Manjhi P.S. Case No.
105 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the accused-Respondent No.
2 has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 450 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
2/15
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of
Manan Ram (PW-6) recorded on 28.07.1997 at 12:30 pm by SI
Bisheshwar Ram of Manjhi Police Station. In his fardbeyan
(Exhibit 'P-2'), he has stated that on 27.07.1997 at about 10:00
pm, when it started dripping, he and his brother Chandrama came
down from the roof and went to sleep in their respective rooms. At
11:00 pm, the informant woke up on hearing the sound of his
brother that he has been shot at and when he came out opening his
door, he saw his brother lying who was saying that someone has
shot at him and fled away. The informant went outside and tried to
see in torch light and found that the door was opened but nobody
was present there. Thereafter, he immediately returned to his
brother, in the meanwhile, his 'Bhabhi', namely, Chanda Devi
(PW-4) came crying and told him that when they were sleeping in
the house, someone from the courtyard asked to open the door
saying in the voice of her handicapped child that he had to go to
attend the nature's call. She asked her husband to go with him. The
informant's brother opened the door then unknown person fired
from the baramdah of the courtyard which hit his chest and other
body parts from chest to thigh due to which he got injured and fell
down. The informant and his Bhabhi tried to lift him to get him
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
3/15
treated but at about 11:30 PM, he died on the spot. The informant
and his Bhabhi started crying then someone informed the
Chaukidar but no one from the village came there. The informant
alleges that due to some old land dispute, someone copied the
voice of his nephew and killed his brother.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, a formal FIR was
registered being Manjhi P.S. Case No. 105 of 1997 dated
28.07.1997
. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet on
05.08.2023 against Ganesh Ram and Sunil Ram and on
05.08.2023, Police submitted supplementary chargesheet against
Braj Kishor Ram. Learned Magistrate took cognizance under
Sections 302, 450 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the
Arms Act. Finding that the offences of which cognizance was
taken by the learned Magistrate are triable by the court of
Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the records to the court
of Sessions vide order dated 02.07.2004. Accordingly, on receipt
of the records, the learned trial court on 09.10.2004 framed the
charges under Sections 302/34, 450/34 IPC and Section 27 of the
Arms Act against Ganesh Ram, Sunil Ram and Brij Kishore Ram.
Charges were explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
5. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eight witnesses and exhibited three documents. The list of
prosecution witnesses and documents exhibited on behalf of
prosecution are mentioned hereinbelow in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 Gopal Ram
PW-2 Hari Narayan Ram
PW-3 Harendra Ram
PW-4 Chanda Devi
PW-5 Rajkumari Devi
PW-6 Manan Ram
PW-7 Dr. Suresh Prasad
PW-8 Girish Kumar Singh
List of Exhibits
Ext. P-1 Signature of witness on seizure list
Ext. P-2 Signature of informant on written
report
Ext. P-3 Postmortem report
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
6. The learned trial court analysed the evidences on the
record and found that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are villagers who are
hearsay witnesses and have not seen the occurrence, PW-4 is the
wife of the deceased, PW-5 is the sister-in-law of the deceased and
PW-6 is the brother of the deceased and informant of this case.
Learned trial court found that the FIR is against unknown but in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
the re-statement, the informant cast doubt on the accused and in
his evidence before the court he said that he had seen the accused
in the light of torch and had actually seen the accused firing at the
deceased.
7. Learned trial court found that PW-4 had also cast
doubt on the accused in her statement before the police and had
said that she did not see the assailants but in her evidence before
the court, she claimed to have seen the occurrence. Learned trial
court also found that PW-5 who claims to be present at the place of
occurrence with her husband (PW-6) was inquired by police after
six months of the occurrence, she claimed to have seen the
occurrence. Learned trial court held that though the informant and
the witnesses claimed to have seen the accused firing but the
informant did not give the names in the fardbeyan. Learned trial
court observed that the three witnesses PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 are
the family members of the deceased who are natural witnesses of
the incident that took place in the night inside the house and their
evidence cannot be brushed aside on the ground that they are
family members but the deviation in their statements and
improbability of not naming the accused at the first instance if they
saw the accused at the time of occurrence are the grounds which
make their evidence unreliable.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
8. Learned trial court in this regard relied upon the
judgments in the case of Md. Yunus vs. State of Bihar reported in
b, Kishori Mahto vs. State of Bihar reported in 2017 (2) PLJR
441 and Putul Jha and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in
2019 (4) PLJR 218.
9. As stated above, the learned trial court acquitted the
accused-respondent no. 2 giving him benefit of doubt.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
10. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh No. 1, learned counsel for the
appellant has assailed the impugned judgment. It is submitted that
learned trial court has committed gross error in appreciation of the
evidences on the record.
11. It is his submission that the occurrence took place at
about 11:00 PM during the night hours. The brother of the
deceased who is the informant of this case and the appellant before
this Court has deposed as PW-6. He has stated that the accused
Braj Kishor Ram, Sunil Ram and Ganesh Ram entered into his
house from the 'dhadha' available from the backside of his house
leading to the roof. He has stated that the accused persons got
opened the door by his bhabhi and brother, both had come outside,
she had seen all the three accused and called PW-6 whereafter he
came in the courtyard but before he could have reached, they had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
shot at his brother. This witness has stated that the accused persons
abused him and placed the pistol upon him. He had identified all
the three accused persons in the torch light. He has stated that
when he had started shouting then villagers came there. This
witness has proved his signature on his fardbeyan and the same
has been marked Exhibit '1'.
12. Learned counsel submits that other witnesses,
namely, Gopal Ram (PW-1), Hari Narayan Ram (PW-2), Harendra
Ram (PW-3), Chanda Kunwar (PW-4) all have supported the
prosecution case. Chanda Kunwar (PW-4) who is the wife of the
deceased has claimed to have identified the accused persons. It is
submitted that similarly Rajkumari Devi (PW-5) has also
supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel submits that in
these circumstances, the learned trial court has failed to appreciate
that the prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the
accused-respondent no. 2 beyond all reasonable doubts.
Submissions on behalf of the State
13. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has defended the impugned judgment. It is
submitted that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the
entire evidences available on the record. It is submitted that the
occurrence took place in the night hours of 27.07.1997 whereas the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
fardbeyan of the informant (PW-6) was recorded on 28.07.1997 at
12:30 pm at his residence in the village. Even though the
fardbeyan was recorded after more than 12 hours of the
occurrence, the informant did not disclose the name of the accused
persons in his fardbeyan. His statement in the examination-in-chief
gives a completely different story. In his fardbeyan, he has stated
that when he got awaken on hearing the voice of his brother
Chandrama, he came outside after opening the door of his room
and found that his brother was lying in front of the door of his
room and he was saying that someone had shot at him and fled
away, the informant has further stated in his fardbeyan that when
he tried to see outside in the torch light, there was none. In his
fardbeyan, the informant has stated that his bhabhi informed him
that when someone called in the voice of her handicapped son and
asked her husband to open the door so that the handicapped son
may go outside to defecate, the victim opened the door whereafter
someone fired from the Verandah situated in the courtyard. It is
submitted that neither the informant nor his bhabhi had seen any
of the accused persons. In course of trial, they drastically improved
upon their case and claimed that they had seen the accused persons
at the place of occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submits that Gopal Ram (PW-1) and Hari Narayan Ram (PW-2)
both have stated that they heard about the murder of Chandrama
and only after hearing hulla, they had reached his house. In his
cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that the wife of Chandrama or
any other person had not disclosed the name of the assaillant.
Similarly, PW-2 has stated in his cross-examination that his house
is adjacent to the place of occurrence. He could not know the
reason behind the occurrence and the persons involved in the
murder of Chandrama. It is submitted that Harendra Ram (PW-3)
has stated in his examination-in-chief that his statement was not
recorded by the police. This witness has been declared hostile as
he did not support the prosecution case. It is submitted that PW-4
is the bhabhi of the informant who has for the first time deposed in
her examination-in-chief that she had seen the accused persons.
Her attention was also drawn towards her previous statement made
before the police in which she had given a different statement.
15. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also
submitted that so far as the informant (PW-6) is concerned, he has
also come out with a different statement in his examination-in-
chief and in his cross-examination, he has stated that all the three
accused persons are his co-sharers. No one had gone to the police
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
station prior to the arrival of the Daroga. He has stated that after
the arrival of Daroga, Braj Kishor Ram and his father, namely,
Ruplal Ram had not come. He has stated that the police had
prepared the paper and he had put his signature thereon but in his
presence, Braj Kishor Ram had not signed on that paper. Attention
of this witness was drawn towards his fardbeyan in which he had
not disclosed the name of any of the accused. His attention was
also drawn towards his re-statement made before the police in
which he had not stated to have seen anyone killing his brother or
fleeing away.
16. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor points out that
so far as PW-5 is concerned, she had made her statement before
police after seven months. Her attention was also drawn towards
her previous statement made before police in which she had stated
that her husband and dyadin had told her that Sunil Ram had killed
her bhaisur. Learned Additional PP, therefore, submits that not
only the informant (PW-6) is falling in the category of wholly
unreliable witness, even the wife of the deceased cannot be
believed. So far as other witnesses are concerned, the depositions
of PW-1 and PW-2 would show that when they reached the house
of the deceased, the wife of the deceased had not told them about
the persons who were involved in the murder of her husband. It
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
has been submitted that the judgment of the learned trial court is
based on proper appreciation of the evidences.
17. Learned Additional PP has relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.D. Sundara and
Others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 to
submit that acquittal of the accused strengthens the presumption of
his innocence and the Appellate Court while deciding an appeal
against acquittal must come to a finding that only conclusion
which could be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record is
that the accused is guilty of committing offence. In this case,
however, it would not be possible to reach a conclusion that the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused.
Consideration
18. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also perused the
trial court's records. In fact, this Court has gone through the entire
evidences available on the record and has reappreciated the
prosecution evidences.
19. In this case, police submitted a charge-sheet in which
17 witnesses were cited on behalf of the prosecution but in course of
trial, only 8 witnesses could be produced. Out of these 8 witnesses,
P.W. 8 happened to be an advocate clerk who was produced as a
formal witness to identify handwriting of the then S.H.O. in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
endorsement on the fardebyan and the handwriting of the S.I. Mustaq
Ahmad and Tapeshwar Yadav. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are the
villagers who are hearsay witnesses. They had not seen the
occurrence and are completely unaware of the culprits. In this
connection, we find that from the inception itself, the prosecution did
not disclose the name of the accused. Fardbeyan of the informant
(PW-6) (Exhibit 'P-2') would show that his statements are based on
what he was told by his bhabhi (PW-4.). In the fardbeyan, it is stated
that his bhabhi told him about the occurrence saying that an
unknown person had fired from the Baramdah of the courtyard and
killed her husband.
20. We find that neither in the fardbeyan nor in his re-
statement, the informant implicated the private Respondent No. 2.
The attention of the informant and other prosecution witnesses were
drawn towards their previous statements made before the
Investigating Officer. The defense suggested to the informant that in
his fardbeyan he had not given name of any accused. Further
suggestion was made that in his re-statement also, he had not stated
that he had either seen anyone firing upon the deceased or fleeing
away from the place of occurrence. The informant (PW-6) denied the
suggestions. The wife of the deceased has come to depose as PW-4.
Her attention was also drawn towards her previous statements made
before the I.O. She was suggested that in her statement before the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
I.O., she had not given name of any of the accused. She had also not
stated before the I.O. that on the order of Brij Kishor, Sunil had fired
from pistol. PW-4 though denied both the suggestions but she has
stated in paragraph '3' of her deposition that she did not know as to
whether Brij Kishor was in his house on the said date. He has stated
that Birj Kishor Ram is her co-sharer. She was specifically suggested
by the defence that she has not stated before the I.O. that Sunil had
killed her husband by his pistol. These suggestions had though been
denied by PW-4 but the fact is that the I.O. of this case has not been
examined in course of trial.
21. The learned trial court has rightly concluded that non-
examination of the I.O. in a case where major contradictions or
improvements have been made by the witnesses would cause
prejudice to the defence and the benefit would go to the accused.
22. From the entire evidences on the record, we find that it
is a case of blind murder and only at the stage of trial, the
prosecution witnesses had changed their version and came out with a
story which they had never disclosed in course of investigation of the
case. The wife of the deceased (PW-4) and the informant (PW-6)
both are wholly unreliable witnesses. We further find that even the
sister-in-law of the deceased who has been examined as PW-5 was
produced before the I.O. after six months of the occurrence. PW-5
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
claimed that she had not seen the accused persons fleeing away. Such
belated examination of PW-5 would not inspire confidence.
23. We are dealing with a case of appeal against acquittal.
The scope of interference in such matters have been succinctly dealt
with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.D. Sundara
(supra). Paragraph '8' of the said judgment is being produced
hereinunder for a ready reference.
"8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the
legality and validity of the impugned judgment 1
rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal
against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). The
principles which govern the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal under Section 378CrPC can be summarised as
follows:
"8.1. The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an
appeal against acquittal, is entitled to
reappreciate the oral and documentary
evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an
appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating
the evidence, is required to consider whether
the view taken by the trial court is a possible
view which could have been taken on the
basis of the evidence on record;
(1 State of Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyappa, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1153 of 2023 dt.13-11-2024
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view
was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with
the order of acquittal only if it comes to a
finding that the only conclusion which can
be recorded on the basis of the evidence on
record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no
other conclusion was possible."
24. On re-appreciation of the entire evidences on the
record, we are unable to reach to an irresistible conclusion that the
Respondent No. 2 is liable to be held guilty for the charged
offence, in such circumstance, it would not be appropriate to
interfere with the judgment of the acquittal.
25. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Manish/Lekhika/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 26.11.2024
Transmission Date 26.11.2024
