Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 475 (PAT)

Uma Singh v. State Of Bihar

2009-03-25

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2009
JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The sole appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and for two years for the respective offences. 3. This appeal arising out of judgment and order dated 17.3.1988 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 49/9 of 1987 was earlier heard by a Division Bench of this Court. One of the learned Judges by judgment and order dated 20.8.2008 dismissed the appeal by holding that conviction of the appellant on the basis of being last seen with the deceased required no interference. However, the other learned Judge diferred in his views and held in favour of the appellant that in the facts of the case the circumstance of last seen was also not established as there were admittedly some other persons with the deceased and the appellant and in any event, on alleged circumstance alone it was not safe to convict the appellant because it could not be said with certainty that the appellant alone had the opportunity to kill the deceased whose dead body was recovered on the next morning from an orchard in another village which according to the Investigating Officer, was situated at least half kilometer away from the village of the deceased where they were allegedly seen at a tea shop. 4. On going through the material evidence as well as discussions made by both the learned Judges in their respective judgments, it is found that evidence of material witnesses have been properly noticed in those judgments but the relevant parts of the depositions, particularly of the tea shop owner, P.W. 3, a labourer, P.W. 4, who also claimed to have seen the deceased and the appellant in the way along with three more persons, while he was going to the Station and the evidence of P.W. 9 has been analyzed in greater details in the judgment of Mr. Syed Mohammad Mahfooz Alam, J. On the basis of minute analysis of evidence of those witnesses I find myself in agreement with the view expressed by. Syed Mohammad Mahfooz Alam, J. On the basis of minute analysis of evidence of those witnesses I find myself in agreement with the view expressed by. the aforesaid Hon ble Judge that it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion that only the appellant could have committed the murder of the deceased. For coming to this conclusion all the relevant facts such as time and place where the deceased and the appellant were seen by the witnesses and the admitted fact that some other persons were also present in their company and the distance of the place of occurrence and uncertainty as to the exact time of the occurrence have been correctly noticed and appreciated. 5. The case laws cited by both the parties have also been dealt with minutely and on the basis of several judgments of the Supreme Court such as AIR 1991 SC 1674 (Inderjit Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab), 2006 Criminal Law Journal 4506 (Parna Oraon and Another vs. State of Jharkhand) and A.I.R. 1979 SC 1949 (Pohalya Motya Vaivi vs. State of Maharashtra) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar and another vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2007(2) PLJR 622 : 2007 (1) PCCR 241 (PHC), the law relating to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence was properly appreciated and applied to the facts of the case to hold that conviction of the appellant could not be sustained on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case. 6. The belated attempt of the prosecution to allege that there were some differences and dispute between the appellant and the deceased has also rightly been negatived on the basis of fact that the informant did not even whisper about any animosity in his fardbeyan. Hence the allegation made by the informant, P.W. 12 to this effect was rightly not accepted. Further such allegation by P.W. 7, Birendra Prasad Singh and P.W. 8, Amrendra Prasad Singh has also rightly not been given credence in view of evidence of the I.O. (P.W. 14) that before the police authorities these two witnesses had not stated about such quarrel or animosity between the appellant and the deceased. Even the conduct of the deceased and the appellant as disclosed in the evidence of the witnesses does not show that they were on inimical terms. Even the conduct of the deceased and the appellant as disclosed in the evidence of the witnesses does not show that they were on inimical terms. To the contrary, they were seen moving together along with others in relaxed and normal manner. 7. On a proper consideration of all the facts and circumstances and in view of Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar (supra), relevant part of which has been narrated in the judgment of Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J. I am in agreement with his views that the appellant Uma Singh cannot be heid guilty of the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act on the basis of evidence and circumstances brought on record by the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. The appellant appears to be on bail and hence he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. The Appeal stands allowed.