Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 243 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Ram Krishna Singh @ Ramu Singh

2003-02-28

BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, PRABHAT KUMAR SINHA

body2003
Judgment Prabhat Kr.Sinha and Braj Nandan Pd.Singh JJ. 1. For having committed murder of Diwakar Narain Singh, an Advocate, within the court premises on 27.3.2001 around 3.00 P.M. the appellant was tried and convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (the Code, in short) and was sentenced to death which gave rise to D.R. Case No. 7 of 2001 which has been heard along with Criminal Appeal no. 1 of 2002 filed by the appellant separately. 2. Shorn of details, the factual matrix as coming out in the fardbayan (Exhibit-3) of son of the deceased, Manindra Kumar (P.W.10) is that while he was at his house Aditya Kumar Singh, Advocate (P.W.5) came and informed that someone had stabbed his father at which he came with him and found his father lying dead near the southern urinal situated within the premises of the civil courts in a pool of blood and the people assembled there informed him that the appellant had committed murder with dagger. This appellant, who happened to be informants uncle in relation, was also married with the informants mothers sister and had enmity. The reasons for enmity have also been mentioned in the first information report such as dispute for homestead land and because the deceased used to sermon him against selling the lands and beating his wife. Against his selling of the property for satiating his drinking habits, the sister and children had filed a partition suit in which the case was looked after by the deceased, being an Advocate, which was decided in their favour. It was also mentioned that the appellant had filed a suit for divorce in which the deceased used to represent the wife. For these reasons the appellant earlier also had threatened the deceased and on the date of occurrence itself at 7.00 A.M., the appellant had visited the house of the deceased and had an altercation with him. 3. In his defence the appellant denied his complicity in the alleged crime and witnesses were suggested that because of enmity the appellant was falsely implicated, The prosecution, in order to support its case has examined as many as twelve witnesses and three witnesses were examined as Court Witnesses. Out of the witnesses, P.W.9., Dr. Afaque Ahmad Lari had conducted autopsy upon the dead body whereas P.W.12, Murari Lal Sharma was the Police Officer who had conducted the investigation. Out of the witnesses, P.W.9., Dr. Afaque Ahmad Lari had conducted autopsy upon the dead body whereas P.W.12, Murari Lal Sharma was the Police Officer who had conducted the investigation. P.W.11, Ganesh Singh, also a relative of the deceased, has deposed as eye-witness whereas P.W.2, Ratnakar Narain Singh, brother of the deceased and other witnesses have lent supporting hands. 4. In course of arguments it was not denied, rather it was admitted, that the murder had taken place on the date and time as alleged but the complicity of the appellant in that was the point which was argued against by the learned counsel for the appellant. Many of the witnesses are Advocates practicing in the civil courts at Sitamarhi and they have supported the fact about killing of the deceased near urinal, around 3.00. P.M. In this regard the evidences of P.W.1, Balram Singh P.W.5, Aditya Kumar Singh P.W.6, Birendra Prasad Singh P.W.7, Gajendra Kumar P.W.8 Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, Court Witness no. 1, Chandra Bhushan Sharma, Court Witness no.2 Bimal Kumar Shukla and Court Witness no.3, Arun Kumar Singh, besides P.W.11, Ganesh Singh may be seen. 5. Before coming to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, first a glance over the evidence that has been relied upon by the prosecution to prove the allegation, P.W.11, Ganesh Singh said that Diwakar Narain Singh was murdered at about 3.00 P.M. on the date of occurrence, on which date he had gone to the civil courts at Sitamarhi to meet him for taking legal opinion. This witness said that, asking him to stay, the deceased proceeded towards the urinal at the southern gate but while he was proceeding, this witness saw that the appellant came and gave a knife blow which the deceased fended off his hand, but fell down. After this, the appellant gave two to three knife blows to the deceased and fled away through the southern gate. This witness chased, but could not catch him. The witness again returned to the place of occurrence and saw much blood flowing and Diwakar Narain Singh, dead. He said about presence of many Advocates there whom, and to others, he narrated what he had seen. After two to three minutes P.W.2 also came there whom also he told about the incident at which P.W.2 told him that he had seen the assailant fleeing away. He said about presence of many Advocates there whom, and to others, he narrated what he had seen. After two to three minutes P.W.2 also came there whom also he told about the incident at which P.W.2 told him that he had seen the assailant fleeing away. Thereafter, the son of the deceased came. In cross-examination this witness said that he had given his statement before the Police whereafter he had gone to the house of the deceased. He also admitted that one blood stained file belonging to the deceased, was also lying near the dead body. He admitted that he had come from his home situated at Madhupur starting from there at 9.00 A.M. He also told the Court that he had no case pending there but he had purchased a land with regard to which he had come to take legal advice of the deceased. He admitted that the deceased was the brother-in-law of his brother. Nothing of significance could be elicited from the witness in course of cross-examination, as will appear from his evidence. 6. P.W.2, the brother of the deceased said that around 2.30 to 3.00 P.M. on that day he had gone to get his cycle repaired when he saw the appellant fleeing away from civil courts campus with a blood stained knife in his hand. He also heard hulla "Maar Dia, Maar Dia". When he came inside the campus of the civil courts he found his brother lying, blood oozing from his body. He also supported that on the date of occurrence at 7.00 A.M. the appellant had an altercation with the deceased. in cross-examination he said that he had seen the appellant in the morning at his house. This witness also said that he ran a flour mill and on that day he had come to Sitamarhi to purchase diesel and when his cycle needed repair he had come near the court for the same. About the reason for visiting town, this witness has also been supported by P.W.10. He, however, admitted that in between him and the appellant a case relating to land was pending, 7. In this regard, statement of P.W.8 also may be seen. About the reason for visiting town, this witness has also been supported by P.W.10. He, however, admitted that in between him and the appellant a case relating to land was pending, 7. In this regard, statement of P.W.8 also may be seen. While supporting the incident of murder he said that when he came to the place of occurrence he found Ganesh Singh there who said that it was Ram Krishna Singh alias Ramu Singh who had inflicted knife blows to the deceased. He said that he had asked the name of that person at which he revealed his name to be Ganesh Singh. Likewise, C.W.1 also said that a client of the deceased, who told his name to be Ganesh Singh, had told them that the murder had been committed by this appellant. C.W.2 did not say any such thing in his examination-in-chief but in course of cross-examination he said that immediately after murder people had assembled at the place of occurrence where one Ganesh Singh told them that the deceased had been killed by his cousin Ramu Singh, with knife. He also said that on being asked, he revealed his name to be Ganesh Singh. Evidence of these three witnesses on the point as to what had happened, immediately after the occurrence as having been told by Ganesh Singh an eye-witness, would be admissible under Example (a) of section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the evidence on the record on many counts which may now be examined. Learned counsel argued that P.W.11 was a resident of Madhubani hence at best was a chance witness who had admitted that on that day he had no case in the court. Learned counsel also argued that his name was not mentioned in the first information report nor was he a witness to the recording of first information report, or of the seizure list under which the blood stained file belonging to the deceased was seized in presence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 who were witnesses to that, which exposed his evidence to doubts. 9. In so far as this argument is concerned, it is not such a point which could discredit P.W. 11. 3 and 4 who were witnesses to that, which exposed his evidence to doubts. 9. In so far as this argument is concerned, it is not such a point which could discredit P.W. 11. This witness claimed that he had come and met the deceased on the date of occurrence in the civil courts in order to take his legal advice and has also told in cross-examination as to in what connection he had come to seek the advice of the deceased. Not only that, besides the witnesses who have told as to what Ganesh Singh had told them just after occurrence, his presence on the spot is also proved by the Investigating Officer who has revealed the name of the persons whose statements he had recorded at the place of occurrence after recording the fardbayan at 3.15 P.M., that is, soon after the occurrence. In that regard he said that he also had recorded the statements of Ganesh Singh, as well of P.W.2, Ratnakar Narain Singh. Therefore, this argument that this witness, or P.W.2 was not at the place of occurrence is not available to the defence. 10. In this regard the truth or otherwise of the evidence of this witness can also be discerned from the fact that this witness claimed that after he had talked for sometime with the deceased, the deceased asked him to stay and proceeded towards urinal obviously with intention to ease himself. The doctor witness, P.W.9 has said, as also mentioned in the post mortem report (Exhibit-2), that the bladder of the deceased was full. 11. Learned counsel also argued that it has come in the evidence that the deceased was carrying a file with him and at that time P.W.11 was also with him. It was argued that it was, therefore, unnatural for the deceased to have proceeded towards the urinal with the file in his hand whereas natural thing to do would have been to hand-over the file to P.W.11, moreso, when P.W.11 was his relative. This point actually does not need any comment. As to why he carried the file with him to the urinal could have been explained by the deceased. 12. This point actually does not need any comment. As to why he carried the file with him to the urinal could have been explained by the deceased. 12. Learned counsel also argued that the place of occurrence was at such a place which must have been full of persons but there was no reason as to why no other witness came to claim that he had seen the appellant murdering the deceased. In that regard learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out certain cbservations of the learned lower court about the lawyer witnesses. In so far as those comments are concerned, this needs only to state that the attention of the Advocate witnesses not having been drawn to any previous statement in which they might have said something else, their evidence in the court has to be accepted at their face value. A large number of persons having seen commission of murder or other offences at a public place do not come forward as a witness to support the prosecution is a common phenomena which has come for consideration in a number of cases. There is a general tendency of people, even enlightened ones, to keep oneself aloof even when they have seen an offence having been committed within their view. There is a variety of reasons for this including diminishing faith in law and order machinery, fear of offenders, as well a sense of harassment if associated with a case, even as a witness. However, what has to be seen is as to whether or not the evidence of witnesses who have supported the occurrence is reliable and trustworthy. Even if a witness is interested one or a relative of the victim, that can hardly be a reason to throw out such evidence altogether. In such a case what has to be done is to sift the evidence of such a witness with more care and caution. There is hardly anything in the evidences of P.Ws 11, 2 and 8 apart from the evidences of court witnesses no.1 and 2 that could cast any doubt upon their testimonies. 13. Learned counsel also argued that if the appellant had to commit murder there was hardly any need for him to do that at a public place, rather he could have selected a secluded or less obvious place for that. 13. Learned counsel also argued that if the appellant had to commit murder there was hardly any need for him to do that at a public place, rather he could have selected a secluded or less obvious place for that. It was also argued that in the civil court premises there was no immediate reason for him to commit the murder. 14. In so far as the presence of the appellant in the civil court premises is concerned, P.W.5 has also said that he had seen the appellant in between 1.00 to 1.30 P.M. in the civil court and also had talked with him. As to why the appellant had murdered the deceased at a public place can be explained only by him. But murders are known to have been committed at public places and on that count otherwise acceptable evidence of the prosecution cannot be put to doubt. In so far as the argument about no immediate provocation is concerned, it has come on the record that the deceased, who was a relative of the appellant in two ways, was looking after the case of his adversaries. It has come in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.10 that in that morning itself the appellant had a quarrel with the deceased at his house. Therefore, the appellant had a motive to physically harm the deceased. In view of that it is hardly material as to whether or not he had committed murder on any immediate provocation. 15. Learned counsel also argued that blood, that was seized, was not sent for forensic examination. No doubt, blood should have been sent for such examination but in view of overwhelming evidence on the record that the deceased was murdered at the place as claimed by the prosecution and a number of witnesses saying that copious blood had oozed out from the wounds, this point will not cause any dent in the prosecution case. 16. On a careful consideration of the evidences on the record as well the reasonings given by the learned lower court for convicting the appellant, we find that the judgment was supported by the materials on record and the learned lower court had meticulously considered all the important aspects coming into evidence. 16. On a careful consideration of the evidences on the record as well the reasonings given by the learned lower court for convicting the appellant, we find that the judgment was supported by the materials on record and the learned lower court had meticulously considered all the important aspects coming into evidence. Apart from that and what has been discussed above, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its charge under section 302 of the Code against the appellant. In view of that the judgment of conviction needs no interference from this court. 17. The last argument of the learned counsel was that this was not a case in which punishment of death should have been awarded. For that the learned counsel has based arguments taking help of a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lehna V/s. State of Haryana, 2002 (3) S.C.C. 76 . 18. In what nature of cases a sentence of death is justified, has been settled in a catena of decisions of the Apex Court including in the cases of Bachan Singh V/s. State of Punjab; (1980) 2 S.C.C. 684 , Panchhi V/s. State of U.P.; 1998 S.C.C. (Crl.) 561 and in the case of Om Prakash V/s. State of Haryana; (1999) 3 S.C.C. 19 . 19. In this case it is apparent from the materials on record that the appellant had a grudge against the deceased for a number of reasons which reasons have also been catalogued in the first information report itself. The murder appears to have been committed in that frame of mind. The murder does not appear to have been committed in manner which would have shocked the conscience of the society at large, There is nothing on the record to show that if not hanged, the appellant would eventually become a menace to the society or that earlier he was such a menace. In that view of the matter, we do not find that this is one of those rarest of rare cases in which the punishment of death should have been awarded. In our considered view the sentence of imprisonment of life would serve the ends of justice. 20. In the result, the sentence of death is commuted to the imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Code. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed. In our considered view the sentence of imprisonment of life would serve the ends of justice. 20. In the result, the sentence of death is commuted to the imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Code. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed. The reference also stands answered, accordingly.