Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 164 (JHR)

Pandey Singh v. State of Bihar

2018-01-18

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 11th of June, 1993, passed by the learned VIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 1992, whereby, out of the four accused persons, facing the trial, for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, only the accused Pandey Singh has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced for the said offence. The other three accused persons were acquitted of the charge. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the said offences. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of Deo Narayan Singh, the son of the deceased Sheo Narayan Singh, recorded on 25.6.1990 at 12.30 P.M., at Burhmu Police Station, wherein the informant has stated that on the same day at about 11.00 A.M., he was returning from Ratu Mela and when he reached the Thakurgaon market, he heard that one deaf teacher had been killed, whose dead body was lying on the village road near Kulwe Bandh, whereupon he rushed to that place, as his father was also a teacher and was deaf. He saw the dead body, which he identified to be of his father. There were several injuries on the dead body and the dead body was lying in the pool of blood. The informant has stated in the fardbeyan that he suspected that the offence had been committed by Balgovind Singh, Bhushan Singh and Vinod Singh, due to previous land dispute. In the said fardbeyan, the present accused appellant was not named. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Burhmu P.S. Case No. 30 of 1990, corresponding to G.R. No. 2103 of 1990 was instituted, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against unknown and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case against the three suspected accused persons in the fardbeyan and also against the accused Pandey Singh. 4. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case against the three suspected accused persons in the fardbeyan and also against the accused Pandey Singh. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against all the four accused persons for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accuseds' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution has not examined the I.O. of the case, and accordingly, P.W.-10 Jagarnath Ram, a constable, has been examined as a formal witness, who has proved the formal F.I.R., the fardbeyan, inquest report and the seizure list, out of which, the fardbeyan was earlier marked Exhibit-3. The formal F.I.R., inquest report and the seizure list were marked Exhibits- 6, 7 and 8 respectively. 5. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, the informant P.W.-3 Deo Narayan Singh, P.W.-1 Mohan Singh, P.W.-2 Sunil Yadav @ Manipuran, P.W.-4 Ganga Singh, P.W.-5 Jaynandan Singh @ Jaichand Singh, and P.W.-7 Sita Devi, the wife of the deceased, have not named the appellant Pandey Singh at all, in their evidence, and as such, so far as this accused is concerned, their evidences are not of much relevance. It may be stated that the witnesses have stated about the death of the deceased, and they had seen the dead body of the deceased. The informant P.W.-3 Deo Narayan Singh had only raised suspicion against the other three accused persons, facing the trial, but the wife of the deceased P.W.-7 Sita Devi has stated that she has no knowledge whether her husband was murdered due to previous enmity with the accused Balgovind Singh or not. P.W.-3 Deo Narayan Singh has also proved the fardbeyan, which was marked Exhibit 3. 6. P.W.-9 Dr. Narayan Minj had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and had found several injuries on the dead body and he has also proved the post-mortem report, which was marked Exhibit-5. In the facts of the case, even the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased need not be discussed in detail. Suffice would be to state that the death of the deceased was found to be due to the ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body. 7. In the facts of the case, even the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased need not be discussed in detail. Suffice would be to state that the death of the deceased was found to be due to the ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body. 7. The only evidence against the accused appellant is the alleged extra-judicial confession, made by this accused before P.W.-6 Chamra Bhagat. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place about 3 years ago. The accused Pandey Singh came to his house one morning and demanded liquor, whereupon he told him that he was a Bhagat and he had no liquor to give him, whereupon the accused Pandey Singh had stated that he had come after committing the murder of the bahira master (deaf teacher) and if this witness would not give him liquor, he would also commit his murder. This witness has also stated that bahira master was Sheo Narayan Singh, the deceased. This witness has identified the accused in the Court and has stated that there was a bandage on his left hand. This witness has also stated that his statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate, upon which, he had put his thumb impression. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he could not say the date, on which, Pandey Singh had visited his house and he had known Pandey Singh on the day for the first time, when he had came to demand the liquor. This witness has answered to the Court's query saying that since Pandey Singh disclosed his name, therefore, he has named him. This witness has also stated in his cross-examination that before giving his statement, under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the police had instructed him as to how the statement was to be given. He has denied the suggestion that Pandey Singh had never visited his place and that he had given the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., as instructed by the police. 8. The other witness, who has named this accused is P.W.-8 Satyanarayan Singh, son of the deceased. He has stated that he was at Gumla on the date of occurrence, and on the next day he came after hearing about the occurrence and cremated the dead body of his father. 8. The other witness, who has named this accused is P.W.-8 Satyanarayan Singh, son of the deceased. He has stated that he was at Gumla on the date of occurrence, and on the next day he came after hearing about the occurrence and cremated the dead body of his father. The police recorded his statement, in which, he has raised suspicion against Bal Govind Singh, due to previous land dispute. This witness has stated that he was informed by Chamra Bhagat that Pandey Singh had gone to his house, he was having some injury on his hand and he had demanded liquor from him, stating that he had committed an offence and was having pain in his hand. Thereafter Pandey Singh was absconding from the village. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that Pandey Singh was also present before the police when his statement was being recorded and he has denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused Pandey Singh. 9. Apart from the evidence of these two witnesses, there is no material against the accused Pandey Singh on record. On the basis of the evidence, the accused Pandey Singh has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court below. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has also submitted that the present appellant is not named in the F.I.R. and there is no allegation against him. The implication of the accused appellant has come only in the evidence of P.W.-6 Chamra Bhagat, alleging that this accused made an extra-judicial confession before him of committing the murder of the deceased. The other witness, P.W.-8 Satyanarayan Singh, has supported this fact, but he has stated that he was only informed by Chamra Bhagat that that this accused had confessed to have committed an offence. He was not informed that this accused had confessed to have committed the murder of his father. It is further submitted by learned counsel that except the alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused, there is no other material against the accused and it is well settled principle of law that the extra-judicial confession in itself is very weak evidence. He was not informed that this accused had confessed to have committed the murder of his father. It is further submitted by learned counsel that except the alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused, there is no other material against the accused and it is well settled principle of law that the extra-judicial confession in itself is very weak evidence. Learned counsel, submitted that admittedly P.W.-6 Chamra Bhagat was not knowing the accused from before and there was no occasion for the appellant to have made any extra-judicial confession before an unknown person. Accordingly, the said extra-judicial confession is absolutely not believable and the conviction of the appellant could not be maintained on the said extra-judicial confession, and as such, the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Trial Court below is absolutely illegal. 11. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer submitting that it was the accused himself, who had made the extra-judicial confession before P.W.-6 Chamra Bhagat. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment, convicting and sentencing the appellant, placing reliance on his extra-judicial confession. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the evidence on record, we find that the only material against the appellant Pandey Singh is the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused appellant Pandey Singh before P.W.-6 Chamra Bhagat. It is well settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a very weak evidence in itself and no conviction can be based on the extra-judicial confession, unless it is believable and inspires confidence. The law in this regard is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sahadevan & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 3 EastCriC 23 (SC), as follows:- "22. Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused. The Principles (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the Court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. The Principles (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the Court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law." 13. We are of the considered view that extra-judicial confession, allegedly made by the accused-appellant Pandey Singh before P.W.-6 Chamra Bhagat is neither reliable nor believable, as it cannot be believed that a person, who was not known to him at all, would make an extra-judicial confession before him. In the present case the same is also not corroborated by any other evidence, available on record. In the evidence of P.W.-8 Satyanarayan Singh, it is stated that Chamra Bhagat had only informed him that while demanding liquor, Pandey Singh had stated that he had committed an offence. This witness has not stated about the murder of his father. As such, there is no corroboration of the evidence of P.W.-6 Chamra Bhagat by the evidence of P.W.-8 Satyanarayan Singh. The cross-examination of P.W.-6 Chamra Bhagat also shows that before giving his statement, under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the police had instructed him as to how the statement was to be given. As such the evidence of the alleged extra judicial confession, does not inspire confidence, and the same cannot be relied upon. In our considered view, the conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the learned Trial Court below, based on this very extra-judicial confession is absolutely illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 11th of June, 1993, passed by the learned VIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 1992, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the appellant Pandey Singh is hereby, found not guilty and he is acquitted of the charge. Consequently, the appellant Pandey Singh is hereby, found not guilty and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is on bail, and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 15. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment. Appeal allowed.