Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 126 OF 1999
Jaleshwar Singh ..Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar ..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is by Accused No.1 who alongwith two
others faced trial before learned Sessions Judge. Present appellant was
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). Accused No.3-Bir Bahadur Singh was convicted
under Section 302 IPC. Both A-1 and A-3 were sentenced to imprisonment
for life. A-3 was additionally convicted under Section 324 IPC. The two
appellants before the High Court were acquitted of the charge under Section
307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 307 IPC respectively. The trial
Court however held the third accused Hari Shankar Singh @ Timal Singh
guilty in terms of Section 324 IPC. But taking into consideration the young
age instead of sentencing him directed him to be released on bail on
executing interim bail bonds of Rs.2,000/- or two sureties of like amount.
Only A-1 and A-3 preferred an appeal before the high Court.
2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
A case was registered in Taraiya Police Station in the district of
nd
Chapra on 22 July, 1987 on the basis of fard beyan (Ext-3) recorded by S.
I. Dashrath Singh of Marhawrah P.S on 21st July, 1987 at 10.30 p.m. in the
State Dispensary on the statement of one Sharda Devi (P.W.4) wife of late
Chintamani Singh of village Sarai, P.S. Taraya in the district of Saran. The
informant had gone to Marhaura State Dispensary along with body of her
husband who was seriously injured in an incident and there her husband
was declared dead by the doctor and on information, Police arrived and
recorded her statement. She stated before the Police that on the same day at
about 5.30 p.m. when she was in her house, she heard hulla. Thereafter, she
came out and saw Bir Bahadur Singh Jaleshwar Singh and Timal Singh of
the same village (Sarala) present holding Bhala in their hands and her
2
husband Chitamani Singh was also there. According to her, Jaleshwar Singh
told the accused “Maro” (assault) on which Bir Bahadur Singh inflicted a
bhala blow in the abdomen of her husband. Then the informant rushed to the
rescue of her husband and Bir Bahadur Singh also inflicted a bhala blow
which hit her in the finger of her right hand. However, her father-in-law
Ram Nigahi Singh and her son Sanjay Singh also came to her rescue but all
the three accused persons attacked them with bhala. The bhala which had
pearced the abdomen of her husband was pulled out at that time and her
husband died instantaneously. According to her apart from her husband, she
herself, her son Sanjay and her father-in-law Ram Nigahi Singh had also
received injuries in this occurrence and some persons had collected at the
place of occurrence. They included, Abhay Kumar Singh (P.W.1),
Raghunath Singh and one Yogendra Singh. She however, stated that the
other two injured persons who were taken to Hospital at Chapra, would give
further details about the assailants in this case. According to her, the cause of
occurrence was some dispute between the two parties regarding a piece of
land. On the information received by the local Police from the Chapra
Hospital, a Police Officer who happend to be the ASI . of Bhagwan Bazar
P.S. had reached the Sadar Hospital, Chapra at 10.00 a.m. on 22nd July,
1987 and he had also recorded the statement of Ram Nigahi Singh (PW-3) in
3
the form of a fard beyan (Ext-3/1). However, since the case was registered
on the basis of the earlier statement of Sharda Devi, this fardbeyan when
received by the I.O. of Taraya Police Station was kept on the record. While
P.W.3 was admitted in injured condition in the Surgical ward of Chapra
Hospital, he stated before the Police Officer of Bhagwan Bazer P.S. that on
st
the previous day, i.e.,on 21 July, 1987 at about 5.30 p.m. while he was
sitting at his Bathan he saw that Jaleshwar Singh, Bir Bahadur Singh and
Hari Shankar Singh, were trying to transplant paddy in a chunk of field of
this witness by encroaching upon his land. He intervened and prohibited
:
them from doing so and there was some altercation between the two parties.
However, he returned to his Darwaja after asking them not to do so and
they also went away making some utterances but, subsequently, they came
to the Darwaja of the informant. There, Jaleshwar Singh is said to have
instigated his two sons, the other two accused, to assault and kill and the
other two accused , i.e., Bir Bahadur Singh and Hari Shankar Singh brought
.
Bhala from the house and Jaleshwar also brought Bhala. His further case is
that Bir Bahadur inflicted a Bhala blow on his grandon Sanjay Singh who
fell down and at that moment the son of this witness namely, Chintamani
Singh came and Bir Bahadur Singh also inflicted a bhala blow in his
abdomen and Chintamani Singh fell down.
4
When this witnesss proceeded to save his son, he was also attacked
and assaulted with bhala. He also sustained some injuries. Thereafter, Sanjay
was again assaulted by accused persons with bhala. However, the female
members of his family also came on hulla and when the daughter in-law of
this witness, namely, Sharda Devi, intervened, she was also assaulted and
she sustained injuries. According to him, on hearing his cries for help
several persons of his village, including Raghunath Singh, Jay Narayan
Singh, Jogindra Singh and Parmeshwar Singh also came and they intervened
and the assailants then left the place. However, the son of this witness died
on the spot as a result of sustaining injuries by bhala on his abdomen and
this witness was taken to the hospital where he was undergoing treatment.
The Police officer who was entrusted with investigation Shyam Deo Singh
(PW-9) recorded the statements of witnesses and inspected the place of
occurrence and after procuring the post mortem report and on completing the
investigation submitted charge sheet in the case against the three accused
persons under various sections of IPC including Sections 302, 307, 324,
302/34 and also under Section 109 IPC. Accordingly, cognizance of the case
was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. Charges were
5
framed separately against three accused persons of this case by the learned
Sessions Judge, Chapra.
The accused persons were held to be guilty as noted above. Since the
accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. The High Court on
appeal held that so far as conviction of appellant No.1 is concerned, he was
the person who gave the order and after that a fatal blow was inflicted by
appellant No.2 on the deceased. He has been rightly convicted under Section
302 read with Section 109 IPC and so far as appellant No.2 is concerned he
was convicted under Section 302 IPC.
SLP by accused no.2 has been dismissed by order dated 2.3.1998. the
present appeal is by A-1.
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the evidence of PW-1, the eye witness clearly shows that case of Section
302 read with Section 109 IPC is not made out. PW-4 is the informant i.e.
wife of the deceased and PW-3 is the father of the deceased. From the
evidence of PWs 3 and 4 it is clear that there were physical fights abuses. At
the time of abuses except PWs 3 and 4 nobody else was there. The other
6
persons came there just to stop the fight hearing noise on the road. On a
close reading of the evidence is seen that the accused persons were armed.
There was really no direct exhortation to kill but the same was to the effect
that the deceased and others should not be permitted to run away and should
be attacked. On hearing the exhortation accused No.2 pierced the spear to
the chest of the deceased. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 are different as to
the manner of exhortation. One says “Maro Sale Chintamani Ko” while the
other said “Maro Sale Ko Jaan Se”. The words “Jaan Se” appears to be
entered later in the records.
4. That being so, the appropriate conviction would be under Section 307
read with Section 110 IPC. Custodial sentence of 7 years would meet the
ends of justice. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The appellant
shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder of sentence.
…………………………...J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
………………….………..J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
New Delhi,
May 06, 2009
7