Bharat Singh and Another vs The State of Bihar

Bal Krishna Jha, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Patna on 19.9.1987 in Sessions Trial No. 839 of 1986 under Sections 302/341.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the appellants, namely, Lakshman Singh and Bharat Singh, have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 I.P.C.. The appellant, Lakshman Singh has further been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 27 Arms Act with a direction to run his sentences concurrently.

The case of the prosecution as emerged out of First Information Report lodged by the informant, Tulsi Singh, alleging inter alia that in the morning of 2.3.1986 at about 8.30 a.m. after purchasing some articles from the village shop his brother Jugeshwar Singh was returning to his house. When he arrived in front of the Varandah of one Nathuni Singh, the appellant, Lakshman Singh opened fire from his country made pistol at him and he fell down on the ground. On his instigation his brother appellant, Bharat Singh knifed Jugeshwar Singh brutally on the different parts of his body. On the out-cry of the informant villagers assembled and the appellants made good escape from the place of occurrence. This occurrence of murder was witnessed by the witnesses, Sachidanand Singh, P.W. 7 and Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 2 and many others. Thereafter, the injured Jugeshwar Singh with the help of villagers was taken to Maner Hospital for treatment. He died on the way and was brought to the Maner Police Station.

The motive behind the occurrence has been alleged to be the annoyance on the part of the accused-appellants for the protest lodged by the deceased Jugeshwar Singh for grazing his field by their goat.

At Maner Police Station, the I.O. Pashupati Upadhyaya, P.W. 6, recorded the statements of the informant Tulsi Singh, P.W. 1, in presence of the witnesses to the occurrence, Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 2 and Sachidanand Singh P.W. 7. On the basis of the statement of the informant, Tulsi Singh, a formal F.I.R. (Ext. No. 1) was drawn up and the case u/s 302 I.P.C. was registered against both the accused-appellants. The witnesses, Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 2 and Sachidanand Singh, P.W. 7, also put their signatures on the statement of the informant (Ext. Nos. 2 and 2/1 respectively).

On the basis of the F.I.R. lodged police switched over to investigation immediately. After observing all the legal formalities of the investigation the police charge-sheeted both the accused-appellants for trial u/s 302 I.P.C. and Section 27 Arms Act. Ultimately, both the accused-appellants were indicated in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Patna for the murder of Jugeshwar Singh.

At trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses and five witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence.

The accused-appellants pleaded their innocence and false implication out of enmity. The specific defence of the appellant, Bharat Singh, was a plea of alibi and the ground of minority on the alleged date of occurrence.

On consideration of ocular and documentary evidence adduced by the both sides the trial Court recorded the finding of conviction and sentence against both the accused -appellants as indicated above. Hence, this appeal is by them.

We have heard Smt. Pushpa Trivedi as Amicus Curiae for the appellants, the learned A.P.P., Sri Bhagya Narain Gupta for the State and Smt. Anjana Prakash and Bharat Lal, learned Counsels for the informant. We also perused the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and also the record of the case.

The appellants have not challenged the murder of Jugeshwar Singh before us but only have challenged their alleged participation in the commission of his murder.

As stated above, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Out of them, P.W. 1, Tulsi Singh, the informant, P.W. 2, Ram Krit Singh, the uncle of the informant, P.W. 3. Dharmendra Kumar, the nephew of the informant and P.W. 7. Sachidanand Singh. Maternal cousin of Hita Singh own uncle of informant are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 5, Mrs. P.N. John, is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jugeshwar Singh. P.W. 6, Pashupati Upadhyaya, is the I.O. of this case. P.W. 4, Ramashray Prasad Singh, is a formal witness and has proved the entry of Malkana Register (Ext. No. 4) and produced the material exhibits, sealed vial and glass (Material Ext. Nos. I to VI).

The evidence of P.W. 5, Dr. Mrs. P.N. John, is that on 2.3.1986 while she was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Dinapur Sub-Divisional Hospital at Dinapur on the same day at about 2.35 p.m. she conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Jugeshwar Singh. She found rigor mortis present and the following ante-mortem injuries on his dead body:

(1) Multiple pellet wounds on face more on the left cheek, nose, right eye brow and forehead, six pellets removed and were sent in a sealed vial. Each wound was about 1/10" x 1/10" with blackening of skin.

(2) Four incised wounds each 1" x 1/10" x 1/10" on right scapular region.

(3) Two incised wounds each 1" x 1/10" x 1/10" on right auxiliary line, one on the middle and one on the lower part.

(4) Three incised wounds one each on upper, middle and lower part of right side back each 1" x 1/10" x 1/10".

(5) Two incised wounds each 1" x 1/10" penetrating just in the chest cavity and the second in the abdominal cavity. First had entered the left lung and the left sixth rib. The second had injured the liver. The wounds were situated just left to the middle line adjacent to each other. The chest cavity and abdominal cavity were full of blood.

According to her the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to above injuries. First injury was by fire arm pellets like country made pistol. Second and third by sharp cutting weapons and fourth by sharp penetrating weapon, as mentioned in the post-mortem report. The fourth injury has come at serial No. 5 in her evidence. The time elapsed since death was found within, 24 hours. She has further stated that dagger is a sharp cutting weapon as well as penetrating weapon. The incised wounds and also penetrating injury as in this case possible by dagger. She has proved the sealed vial containing the recovered pellets which was handed over to the police (Material Ext. No. I) and also the post-mortem report (Ext. No. 5).

In cross-examination her evidence is that rigor mortis begins 8 hours after the death but its degree varies according to season.

Now, I advert to scrutinize the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the incident. The evidence of the informant, Tulsi Singh, P.W. 1 is that on the day of occurrence i.e. 2.3.1986 at about 8.30 a.m. while he was in his field in the back of his house he noticed that his brother, Jugeshwar Singh, was returning from the shop with sugar in his hand. He also spotted the appellants, Lakshman Singh with country made pistol and Bharat Singh with knife standing near the Varandah of Nathuni Singh in the west of the house of Kashi Singh. As soon as his brother Jugeshwar Singh reached there the appellant, Lakshman Singh, fired from his pistol at him and he fell down on the ground. Thereafter the appellant, Lakshman Singh ordered his brother-appellant, Bharat Singh to finish him whereupon he knifed him indiscriminately. The informant raised alarm whereupon his uncle Ramprit Singh, P.W. 2, Sachidanand Singh, P.W. 7, Rampukar Singh and Dharmendra Singh, P.W. 3 reached there and the accused-appellants made good escape in the southern-western direction. Thereafter, while his injured brother, Jugeshwar Singh, was being removed to Maner Hospital for treatment on a cot he died on the way. Then Jugeshwar Singh was taken to Maner Thana and he lodged the F.I.R. in presence of the witnesses, Sachidanand Singh, P.W. 7, Ram Krit Singh,'' P.W. 2 and Ram Pukar Singh (Ext. No. 1). The F.I.R. was signed by the witnesses, Ram Krit Singh P.W. 2 and Sachidanand Singh, P.W. 7 (Ext. Nos. 2 and 2/1 respectively). He has further outlined the motive behind the occurrence as spelled out in the fardbeyan. In cross-examination he has stated that in the murder case of Ranjit Singh, the cousin brother of Bhuneshwar Singh, the father of the appellants, healongwith his deceased brother Jugeshwar Singh, Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 2 altogether 15 persons were arrayed as accused and the said case is still pending for disposal. He has further stated that in Maner P.S. case No. 62 of 1981, he is not one of the accused and in the murder case of his other Ram Kishore Singh, the brother of Ranjit Singh, Shambhu Singh and Arvind Singh are the accused persons and the said case is also pending for disposal. He has further stated that the Maner P.S. Case No. 62/81 lodged by Shambhu Singh against the deceased Jugeshwar Singh and others has already been disposed of. He has further stated that at time of occurrence his deceased brother Jugeshwar Singh was wearing Lungi, Shirt, underwear having Chadar on his body and he was taken to police station in the same dress. There were blood stains on his shirt, lungi and chadar with a cut mark of knife in his shirt. In cross-examination his further evidence is that he had not disclosed in his fardbeyan that at the time of occurrence he was in his field and his brother was returning with sugar in his hand. But had stated in the fardbeyan and further statement that the appellant, Lakshman Singh with country made pistol and Bharat Singh with knife were standing near the Varandah of Nathuni Singh. He has also stated in the fardbeyan and not in further statement about the firing and assault by Chhura by the appellants. At para 22 of cross-examination his evidence is that he had learnt from Jugeshwar Singh about the grazing of his field by the goat of the appellants.

P.W. 2, Ram Krit Singh, has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 8.30 a.m. while he was sitting on the Varandah of Kashi Singh, he noticed Jugeshwar Singh coming with a Puria in his hand. As soon as he reached near the house of Nathuni Singh, the appellant, Lakshman Singh, fired from his pistol at him and he fell down on the ground. He ordered his brother-appellant, Bharat Singh to finish him whereupon he knifed him indiscriminately. In the mean time, the informant, Tulsi Singh, P.W. 1 and he himself raised alarm, and on the assemblage of the persons the accused persons made good escape from there. Thereafter while the injured was being removed to Maner Hospital by Tulsi, Sachida and Dharmendra on a cot, he died on the way and then he was taken to Maner Police Station. There the informant, Tulsi Singh, P.W. 1 lodged the F.I.R. and he put his signature thereon (Ext. No. 2/1). The witness, Sachidanand Singh, P.W. 7 also signed the statement of the informant, Tulsi Singh, P.W. 1 (Ext. No. 2/1). The Officer Incharge prepared the inquest report (Ext. No. 3) and he alongwith the witness Sachidanand Singh, P.W. 7 put their signatures there-on (Ext. Nos. 2/2 and 2/3 respectively). In cross-examination his evidence is that the deceased was his own nephew and he was also one of the accused in the murder case of Ranjit Singh, the cousin brother of the father of the appellants. He had not stated before the police that at the time of occurrence he was witting at the Darwaja of Kashi Singh. He has denied to have stated before the police that on hearing hulla and the sound of firing he rushed to the place of occurrence but has affirmed that at the relevant time he was present there. He has further stated that he had witnessed the entire occurrence so had not divulged the entire minutes before the police including the firing by the appellant, Lakshman and the order of Lakshman Singh to Bharat Singh to finish the deceased. In cross-examination at para 15 his evidence is that the blood, sugar and its Puria had fallen on the ground. The Officer Incharge had seized the both.

P.W. 3, Dharmendra Kumar is also eye-witness to the occurrence. His evidence is that at the relevant time while he was at the Darwaja of Kashi Singh, he noticed that Jugeshwar Singh was returning from the village shop after purchasing sugar. He also noticed that the appellant, Lakshman Singh with pistol and the appellant Bharat Singh with Chhura standing near the Varandah of Nathuni Singh. As soon as Jugeshwar Singh reached there, the appellant, Lakshman Singh, fired from his pistol at him and he fell down. Thereafter, the appellant, Bharat Singh, knifed him indiscriminately. He alongwith others raised alarm whereupon the appellants fled away. Thereafter while Jugeshwar Singh was being taken to hospital, he died on the way and then was taken back to police station. He has also supported the motive behind the occurrence outlined in the fardbeyan. His further evidence is that both Kashi Singh and Nathuni Singh are own brothers and are related-to the appellants. In cross-examination he has stated that the deceased Jugeshwar Singh, was his own uncle. At para 8 of his cross-examination he has denied to have given hearsay account of occurrence to the police but has stated that at the relevant time he was at the Darwaja of Kashi Singh and had seen both the appellants and the deceased Jugeshwar Singh returning with sugar. He had also stated before the police that Lakshman Singh, fired at Jugeshwar Singh and Bharat Singh assaulted with Chhura. His further evidence is that at that time the deceased was wearing Lungi, Kurta having a chadar on his body. There was stabbed mark in Kurta and Chadar. He had also stated before the police that the witnessed, Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 2, Sachidanand Singh, P.W. 7 and Ram Pukar Singh were present at the place of occurrence.

The evidence of P.W. 7, Sachidanand Singh is that on hearing hulla and the sound of firing when he rushed to the place of occurrence he saw Jugeshwar Singh lying on the ground and the appellant, Lakshman Singh, with pistol there. The appellant, Bharat Singh, was seen assaulting Jugeshwar Singh with Chhura. Thereafter while the injured Jugeshwar Singh, was being taken to Maner Hospital for treatment on a cot by Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 2, Tulsi Singh, P.W. 1, the informant, Ram Pukar Singh and Dharmendra Singh, P.W. 3, he died on the way and then he was taken to Maner Police Station. The informant, Tulsi Singh P.W. 1, lodged F.I.R. and he also put his signature on the statements of the informant (Ext. No. 2/1). The Officer Incharge prepared inquest report in carbon process and he signed it (Ext. No. 2/3). In cross-examination when his attention was drawn to the statements made before the police he had claimed to have stated before the police that he had seen the appellant, Bharat Singh, the occurrence, the appellant Lakshman Singh with pistol and the appellant, Bharat Singh, assaulting the injured Jugeshwar Singh and the witnesses Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 2, Tulsi Singh P.W. 1, Ram Pukar Singh and Dharmendra Singh P.W. 3 present at the place of occurrence. This witness has also claimed to have seen the occurrence of grazing of the field of the deceased Jugeshwar Singh by the goat of the appellants.

P.W. 6, Pashupati Upadhyaya, is the I.O. of this case. He has deposed that on 2.3.1986 while he was posted as Officer Incharge of Maner Police Station, Tulsi Singh, P.W. 1, Sachidanand Singh, P.W. 7, Ram Pukar Singh and Ram Krit Singh P.W. 2 alongwith the deceased Jugeshwar Singh came at the police station and he took down the statement of the informant, Tulsi Singh, P.W. 1, was signed by him as well as by the informant witnesses (Ext. No. 1). He also prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased in the carbon process (Ext. No. 3) and sent the dead body of the State Hospital, Danapur, for post-mortem examination. His further evidence is that he recorded the further statements of Tulsi Singh, P.W. 1 and Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 2. He has further stated that after recording the further statements of Tulsi Singh, P.W. 1 and Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 2 he visited the P.O. on the same day and recorded the statement of Smt. Rupjhora Davi and and Jivnath Singh, Damodar Singh, Dharmendra Singh and Bhagwan Sah. On 9.3.1987 he received the postmortem report, sealed via alongwith the clothes of the deceased. He has proved the sealed vial (Ext. No. I) and the clothes of the deceased, one towel Lungi, underwear, shirt and chadar with blood stains (Ext. No. II to VI). He has further stated that he took the statement of Sachidanand Singh, P.W. 7 and Rajmati Devi on 2.4.1986 and after completing investigation submitted the charge-sheet. He has proved the challan which is under the signature of Mallahana Incharge, Surendra Tiwary (Ext. No. 6). In cross-examination his evidence is that it has been mentioned in the fardbeyan that Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 2 and Sachidanand Singh, P.W. 7 were accompanying the deceased and had came to the police station but he had not recorded the statement of Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 2 at the police station. He recorded the statement of Sachidanand Singh, P.W. 7 on 2.4.1986 and not of Ram Pukar. He had not mentioned in the inquest report the cut mark by knife or pellet found on the clothes of the deceased. He had seen the blood stains and sugar at the place of occurrence, but neither seized nor assigned any reasons of its non-seizure in the case diary. He had also not assigned any reason in the case diary for not recording the statement of Sachinand Singh at the police station. He received the photo copies of certificates furnished by the Professor of Dhanbad in favour of the appellant, Bharat Singh but he never visited Dhanbad for its verification. His further evidence is that the witness Sachidanand Singh, P.W. 7, had given hearsay account of the occurrence and had not disclosed the name of Bharat Singh as well as the names of the witnesses, Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 2, Tulsi Singh, P.W. 1, Dharmendra Singh, P.W. 3 and Ram Pukar Singh. His further evidence is that at the time of lodging F.I.R. the informant had not discussed that he had seen the occurrence from his field and Jugeshwar Singh coming with sugar in his hand and both the appellants standing near the house of Kashi Singh. In the fardbeyan but not in the further statement Tulsi Singh had disclosed to have seen Lakshman Singh with pistol and Bharat Singh with knife. He had also not disclosed in his further statement about the firing and assault by Chhura Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 2 had stated before him that on hearing the sound of firing he rushed to the place of occurrence the witness, Dharmendra Singh, P.W. 3 had given hearsay account of the occurrence before him. He had stated that on hulla he arrived near the Darwaja of Nathuni Singh but had not seen both the appellants standing there, and Jugeshwar Singh returning after purchasing sugar. He had also not stated that Lakshman had fired and Bharat Singh had knifed the deceased Jugeshwar Singh.

Thus, the entire prosecution case rests on the testimony of the eye-witnesses, P.W. 1, Tulsi Singh, P.W. 2, Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 3, Dharmendra Kumar and P.W. 7 Sachidanand Singh. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 indicates that at the relevant hour of occurrence the appellant, Lakshman Singh with pistol and the appellant, Bharat Singh with knife were standing near the Varandah of Nathuni Singh in the west of the house of Kashi Singh. Jugeshwar Singh after purchasing the sugar from the village shop was returning to his house. As soon as Jugeshwar Singh arrived near the Varandah of Nathuni Singh, Lakshman Singh fired from his pistol at him and he fell down. He ordered his brother-appellant, Bharat Singh, to finish him whereupon he knifed him indiscriminately. On hulla, the villagers assembled and both the appellants made good escape from there. P.W. 7, Sachidanand Singh, has also come forward to support the prosecution version that when he on the hearing of hulla and sound of firing arrived at the place of occurrence he saw Jugeshwar Singh lying on the ground and the appellant, Lakshman Singh, standing with pistol in his hand and the appellant, Bharat Singh assaulting the deceased Jugeshwar Singh with knife indiscriminately. It appears from their evidences that immediately the injured was taken to Maner Hospital but on the way he died and then he was taken to Maner police Station. There the informant, Tulsi Singh, P.W. 1 lodged the F.I.R. against both the appellants in presence of the witnesses. P.W. 6. Pashupati Upadhyaya, the I.O. after registering the case he prepared inquest report on the dead body of the deceased Jugeshwar Singh, visited the P.O., recorded the statements of the witnesses and sent the dead body immediately to the Danapur Hospital for post-mortem examination. The medical evidence of P.W. 5, Dr. P.N. John corroborates the prosecution version of the case to the effect that he had found altogether four injuries on the person of the deceased caused by fire arm, sharp cutting and sharp penetrating weapon. According to her opinion dagger weapon may cause sharp cutting as well as penetrating injuries and the death was caused due to the injuries found on his person. Thus, the ocular evidence coupled with the medical evidence and objective findings of the I.O. fully established the prosecution case that the appellants committed the murder of Jugeshwar Singh.

Admittedly, P.W. 1, Tulsi Singh, P.W. 2, Ram Krit Singh, P.W. 3, Dharmendra Kumar and P.W. 7, Sachidanand Singh are closely related to each other but they were only the natural and possible witnesses, so that evidences and the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved and discarded on the basis of their closeness. According to the eye-witnesses to the occurrence the deceased wais wearing Lungi, Shirt, Underwear and a Chadarou his person and the clothes had cut mark of the knife but P.W. 6, Pashupati Upadhyaya, the I.O., failed to mention in his inquest report about the cut marks on the clothes on the deceased which were produced and proved in the Court. At the same time when the attention of the witnesses were drawn to the earlier statement made before the police, certain omissions and contradictions were extracted from the Investigating Officer. But on appreciation of these omissions and contradictions, they do not appear to be vital on material points and they are formal in nature and on the basis of which the prosecution case cannot be thrown in the waste basket. Further in a truthful case minor discrepancies are bound to occur and lend support to the prosecution case.

On the other hand, defence has examined 5 witnesses in support of plea of alibi and minority of the appellant, Bharat Singh. They are Ramautar Rajgrihiya, D.W. 1, Naresh Prasad D.W. 2, Ajay Kumar Singh, D.W. 3, Radha Mohan Singh, D.W. 4 and Ashfaque Ansari, D.W. 5. According to D.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4, the appellant, Bharat Singh was a student of Katras college and on 2.3.1986 he had visited at their residences. In support of his visit they have furnished certificates (Ext. Nos. A, A/1, A/2 and (A/3) but the certificates do not bear the date of issue and the purpose for which he had visits there. D.W. 5, has been examined on the point that on the date of occurrence the appellant, Bharat Singh, was minor. He has proved the Transfer Certificate (Ext, No. C) to show that the appellant, Bharat Singh was born on 18.1.1971 and the date of occurrence being 2.3.1986, he was minor on the date of occurrence. But in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 5.5.1987 he stated his age to be 19 years, so he was more than 17 years on he alleged date of occurrence. The trial Court rightly rejected the defence of the appellant, Bharat Singh, of alibi and minority.

Thus, the above discussions leads to the conclusion that the prosecution has fully established the charges levelled against both the appellants. The judgment and order of conviction and sentences passed by the learned trial Judge requires no interference by this Court.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentences passed against the appellants is affirmed. Both the appellants, Bharat Singh and Lakshman Singh, are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence.

Manoha Lal Visa, J.

I agree.