Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 962 (JHR)

Akhilesh Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-05-01

H.C.MISHRA, SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
JUDGMENT : H.C. MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 24th December, 2005, and Order of sentence dated 2nd January, 2006, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in S.T. No. 445 of 2004, whereby, the sole appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The case relates to the broad daylight murder of the Jailor of Sakchi Jail, at Jamshedpur, namely, late Uma Shankar Pandey, in a very daredevil manner on 12.03.2002. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of a constable warden of the Sakchi Jail, namely, Upendra Singh, recorded at Sakchi Jail, Jamshedpur, on 12.02.2002 at 7:30 hours, wherein he has stated that on the same day at about 7:00 A.M., in the morning, the Jailor Uma Shankar Pandey came out of jail gate and entered his quarter situated near the jail gate, in the jail premises itself. Again he came out at the gate of his quarter, where two persons had arrived, and he started talking with them. Out of them one was Akhilesh Singh, who was earlier an inmate of the jail, in connection with Kabra abduction case, and had absconded in the month of January 2000, from Jamshedpur Court premises. The other person was Santosh Pathak. The informant saw that Santosh Pathak fired pistol upon the Jailor and thereafter the Jailor came out of the gate and caught the hand of Santosh Pathak. In the meantime, Akhilesh Singh pushed the Jailor, due to which he fell down, and he assaulted the Jailor by firearm causing injury on his back, and both the accused persons started fleeing away. There was a commotion due to the occurrence, and both the accused persons were chased by the constables and the public, but Akhilesh Singh managed to flee away, firing the pistol. There was a commotion due to the occurrence, and both the accused persons were chased by the constables and the public, but Akhilesh Singh managed to flee away, firing the pistol. Santosh Pathak was apprehended near Hume Pipe Road at Jamshedpur, from whom, one pistol containing the fired cartridge was recovered, and from his possession, 2 + 10 live cartridges kept separately, one double barrel pistol, and two fired cartridges were also recovered. The apprehended accused was also assaulted by the public, due to which, he was badly injured, and he was brought to jail premises. In the meantime, the Jailor was taken to the TATA Main Hospital (for short T.M.H.). A black colour motorcycle with a bag hanging in its handle, was also found near the jail premises, on which the accused persons had arrived. It is further stated in the fardbeyan, that Akhilesh Singh was confined in the jail in connection with Kabra abduction case, when due to some incident, The Jailor had put him under danda and beri, (hereinafter referred to as chains), and he had threatened the Jailor of dire consequences for his action. It is further alleged that Chandragupt Singh, the father of Akhilesh Singh had also threatened the Jailor for the said act. Claiming, that the accused Akhilesh Singh and Santosh Pathak had assaulted the Jailor Uma Shankar Pandey, by firearms with the intention to cause his death, in connivance with Chandragupt Singh, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which, Sakchi P.S. Case No. 50 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. No. 526 of 2002, was instituted for the offences under Sections 307, 120-B / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the named accused persons and investigation was taken up. As the Jailor died during the treatment, Section 307 of the Indian Penal code, was substituted by Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It may also be stated that the injured accused Santosh Pathak also died after five days, while undergoing treatment in the hospital. Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case against the accused Akhilesh Singh. 4. It may also be stated that the injured accused Santosh Pathak also died after five days, while undergoing treatment in the hospital. Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case against the accused Akhilesh Singh. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, the charge was framed against the sole accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and upon the accused’s pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. 5. In course of trial 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O., and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-5 Raghubir Singh @ Laddo, P.W.-6 Hargovind Singh, P.W.-7 Chhunu Bhumiz and P.W.-8 Motka Hansda, who were the inmates of the jail, have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case at all, though they have stated about the murder of the deceased Jailor. P.W.-9 Shankar Tiwary is a witness to the seizure of the firearms from the deceased co-accused, Santosh Singh, and the contents of the bag found on the motorcycle, but he has also turned hostile, and has not supported even the facts of these seizures in his presence, though he has proved his signatures on the seizure lists, which were marked Exhibits 2 to 2/3. 6. P.W.–2 Upendra Singh is a warden in the Jail, and the informant in the case, and though this witness had given the vivid details of the occurrence in his fardbeyan as an eyewitness to the occurrence, but in his evidence, he has stated that when the Jailor Uma Shankar Pandey was talking at his gate with the two persons, who had entered the jail premises, this witness went to the visitors' room and he sat there. Thereafter, he heard the sound of firing and when he came out, he saw the Jailor fallen down due to the injuries and those two persons were fleeing away. He has stated that he did not identify any of them, as one accused was wearing a helmet and other was wearing a monkey cap. Thereafter, he heard the sound of firing and when he came out, he saw the Jailor fallen down due to the injuries and those two persons were fleeing away. He has stated that he did not identify any of them, as one accused was wearing a helmet and other was wearing a monkey cap. This witness has stated about chasing of the other deceased accused and recovery of firearms from him, but that is not of much importance in the case, as he has stated nothing against the accused Akhilesh Singh, facing the trial. He has stated that the injured Jailor was taken to T.M.H., by the Jail Superintendent Ashok Kumar Choudhary and other persons, including the witness himself, and the Jailor died during treatment. When they returned back from T.M.H., he found the other co-accused had been brought to jail premises, after being assaulted by public, and he was Santosh Pathak, from whom the firearms and ammunitions were recovered. He has identified his signatures on the fardbeyan which were marked Exhibit-1 and 1/1, and has not disputed the contents of his fardbeyan. He has identified the accused in the Court, stating that he identifies him, as he is an inmate in the jail and earlier also he was an inmate in the jail. He has also stated in his cross-examination that he could not identify the other person who managed to flee away. Thus, this witness has taken a complete u-turn from his statement in the fardbeyan, but surprisingly he was not even been declared hostile by the prosecution. 7. P.W.-4 Kamal Ram is also a warden of the Jail. This witness has also turned hostile, but he has stated that upon hearing the sound of firing he rushed there and saw the Jailor fallen injured. He has stated that he did not find anyone there. He has also stated that after some time one accused was apprehended, who was also earlier an inmate in the jail, and he was Santosh Pathak. He was also injured and not in a position to speak properly. He has stated that he did not find anyone there. He has also stated that after some time one accused was apprehended, who was also earlier an inmate in the jail, and he was Santosh Pathak. He was also injured and not in a position to speak properly. As he has not supported the case any further, he was declared hostile and he was cross-examined by the prosecution, from which it appears that he was the eye witness to the occurrence, and he had made the same statement before the police as stated in the F.I.R., and he had also stated that the wound of the Jailor was tied with a towel and he was made to sit on a chair, before he was taken to hospital. Thus it is apparent that even this witness has not dared to speak anything against the accused in the Court, even though he was a warden in the Jail. 8. P.W.-15 Narendra Prasad Singh is an Assistant Jailor. This witness has stated that from July 2001 to 2004 he was posted at Sakchi Divisional Jail. The occurrence had taken place on 12th March, 2002. He was in the office at about 7:00 A.M., when he heard the sound of firing. He enquired and he was told that the Jailor had been assaulted by firearm. He came out of his office and found the Jailor Uma Shankar Pandey sitting on a chair, with his wound tied with a towel. Thereafter he went to inform the Jail Superintendent about the occurrence, and when he was coming along with the Jail Superintendent, he saw the Jailor Uma Shankar Pandey was being taken to hospital on a tempo. He also accompanied them, and in the emergency ward of T.M.H., Uma Shankar Pandey died after about ½ an hour. Thereafter the dead body was taken for post-mortem examination. He has stated that he was not informed as to how the occurrence had taken place, even after he returned back from the hospital. This witness was declared hostile at this point, and he has denied the suggestion to have given the statement before the police, that he had informed the Jail Superintendent that Akhilesh Singh and Santosh Pathak had assaulted the Jailor Uma Shankar Pandey near the gate, which he was informed by the warden Radheshyam Pandey, who was on the sentry duty. This witness was declared hostile at this point, and he has denied the suggestion to have given the statement before the police, that he had informed the Jail Superintendent that Akhilesh Singh and Santosh Pathak had assaulted the Jailor Uma Shankar Pandey near the gate, which he was informed by the warden Radheshyam Pandey, who was on the sentry duty. He has also denied the suggestion to have given the statement before the police, that the accused Akhilesh Singh was put in chains by the Jailor, and he had threatened the Jailor and due to the same reason, Akhilesh Singh had assaulted the Jailor by firearm. Thus it is apparent that even this witness who was holding a respectable post in the jail as Assistant Jailor, has not dared to depose against the accused Akhilesh Singh in the Court. 9. P.W.-1 Radheshyam Pandey is also a warden, who has dared to supported the prosecution case as eyewitness to the occurrence to some extent. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 12th of March 2002, at about 7:00 to 7:10 A.M., in the morning, and he was on the sentry duty at the jail gate. The Jailor Uma Shankar Pandey came out of the jail and he entered his quarter situated in the jail campus itself. Two persons came from right side in the jail campus, one of them was wearing helmet and the other was wearing a monkey cap, and they called the Jailor and the Jailor started talking with them near his gate. Thereafter an altercation ensued between them, and one person assaulted the Jailor by firearm and they started fleeing away. They were chased. He has stated that these two persons fleeing away were Akhilesh Singh and Santosh Pathak, and as this witness was on sentry duty, he did not chase them. Akhilesh Singh managed to flee away, but Santosh Pathak was apprehended by the public and was subjected to assaults. The Jailor was taken to T.M.H., and thereafter this witness learnt that he had died. He has also stated that there was some altercation between the accused Akhilesh Singh and the Jailor prior to the occurrence. He has identified the accused Akhilesh Singh in the Court. In his cross-examination however, this witness has stated that he had not seen the accused Akhilesh Singh committing any offence. He has also stated that there was some altercation between the accused Akhilesh Singh and the Jailor prior to the occurrence. He has identified the accused Akhilesh Singh in the Court. In his cross-examination however, this witness has stated that he had not seen the accused Akhilesh Singh committing any offence. He has also stated that Akhilesh Singh was wearing helmet, and he was also one of the persons who were running. 10. P.W.-3 Ramesh Ram is another warden in the jail, who has also dared to supported the prosecution case as eyewitness to the occurrence to some extent. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 12th March, 2002 at about 7:00 A.M. He was on Sentry duty as a reserve guard. He heard the sound of firing and he rushed towards the Temple in the jail, where the quarter of the Jailor Uma Shankar Pandey was also situated, and he saw the Jailor fallen down in injured condition. He saw two persons fleeing away from there, and this witness along with others chased them. Santosh Pathak was apprehended by the public after a chase, from whom pistol was recovered. Though this witness has stated that he could not identify the person who managed to flee away, but he has deposed that Santosh Pathak informed that the other person was Akhilesh Singh. Santosh Pathak was also injured. The Jailor was taken to hospital by the Jail Superintendent Ashok Kumar Choudhary and other persons, where he died during treatment. He has stated that he was informed that Santosh Pathak and Akhilesh Singh had assaulted the Jailor. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that he was knowing the accused person present in the Court for the last two to three months, when he was brought to jail. He has stated that he had not seen anyone assaulting the Jailor, nor he could identify the person who had managed to flee away. He also could not recollect that who had informed him that Santosh Pathak and Akhilesh Singh had assaulted the Jailor. He has denied the suggestion that Santosh Pathak had not informed that the other person with him was Akhilesh Singh. 11. P.W.-10 Ramjee Pandey is only a witness to the seizure. He has stated that he was taking tea near the Jail Chowk, when some persons had apprehended one boy. He was in injured condition. He has denied the suggestion that Santosh Pathak had not informed that the other person with him was Akhilesh Singh. 11. P.W.-10 Ramjee Pandey is only a witness to the seizure. He has stated that he was taking tea near the Jail Chowk, when some persons had apprehended one boy. He was in injured condition. He was searched by the police and one double barrel pistol and one single barrel pistol with one cartridge in the single barrel pistol and 10 live cartridges and one bhujali were recovered from him. He has also stated that there was a motorcycle near the Jail, with a bag hanging in its handle, in which there was some documents and magazines etc., which were seized by the police. The seizure lists were prepared, on which he has proved his signatures, which were marked Exhibits 2/4 to 2/7. He has also stated that these articles were recovered from the accused Santosh Pathak, who subsequently died. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that Santosh Pathak was so badly assaulted by the public that he was not in a position to speak and he died due to those assaults. 12. P.W.-11 Pankaj Kumar is a Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the statements of the witnesses Radheshyam Pandey (P.W.-1), Vijay Kumar Singh, Motka Hansda (P.W.-8), Raghubir Singh (P.W.-5), Hargovind Singh (P.W.-6) and Chunu Minj, which he has proved and the same were marked Exhibits-3 series. However, these statements could not be taken into consideration, as the attention of none of these witnesses were drawn towards their statement made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. 13. P.W.-12 Dr. Lallan Choudhary had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 12th March, 2002, at about 12:30 P.M., and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body : 1. Lacerated wound with blackened and regular margin 1.5 c.m. x 5.5 c.m. x muscle deep, obliquely placed over left side cheek. 2. Entry wound of 3.2 c.m. x 2 c.m. x abdominal cavity deep over back of right side upper abdomen 36 c.m. below right shoulder and 14 c.m. right lateral of the vertebral column. 3. Tattoo mark surrounding entry wound extent in size 44 c.m. x 28 c.m., right arm back and right side back of chest and abdomen. 4. 2. Entry wound of 3.2 c.m. x 2 c.m. x abdominal cavity deep over back of right side upper abdomen 36 c.m. below right shoulder and 14 c.m. right lateral of the vertebral column. 3. Tattoo mark surrounding entry wound extent in size 44 c.m. x 28 c.m., right arm back and right side back of chest and abdomen. 4. Tattoo mark of 10 c.m. x 10 c.m. present over abdomen in midline front. 5. Tatoo mark 30 c.m. x 13 c.m. over right side chest and abdomen. On dissection:-Chest and abdomen:-A metallic bullet recovered from the muscles of the lower part of chest in midline. Bullet entred through entry wound travelled upward and medially grossly ruptured liver piercing diaphram - fracturing the esterno xyphoid junction and get loss the muscle. The length of bullet 3.2 c.m. circumference 3c.m. ‘L’ mark was given in the back (base) of the bullet, sealed and handed over to Hawaldar. Chest organs Pale, abdominal cavity contained 2 ml. blood. He has stated that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage and all the above injuries were caused by firearm. Time elapsed since death was about six hours approximately. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-4. In his cross-examination by the defence, he has stated that there were five injuries on the dead body of the deceased, and minimum two rounds of bullets were fired, but he could not say whether they were fired from one weapon or two weapons. 14. P.W.-14 Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the accused Santosh Pathak. He has not given the details of his findings and he has only identified the photostat copy of the post-mortem report. 15. P.W.-13 Riseshwar Dayal is the I.O. of the case. He has stated that on 12.3.2002 he was posted as Officer-Incharge of Sakchi Police Station, and on the same day at about 7:00 A.M., the occurrence had taken place in the jail premises in which the Jailor Uma Shankar Pathak was killed. He had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Upendra Singh at about 7:30 A.M., and he took up the investigation. He recorded the re-statement of the informant. He had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Upendra Singh at about 7:30 A.M., and he took up the investigation. He recorded the re-statement of the informant. He inspected the place of occurrence, from where he seized the blood stained soil and prepared the seizure list, which he has proved, and the same was marked Exhibit-2/8. He has also stated that he seized the motorcycle on which he was informed that the accused persons had arrived, and the seizure list was prepared, which also he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-5. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also seized the firearms and ammunitions recovered from Santosh Pathak and the seizure list was prepared. For recovery of the fire arms and ammunitions another F.I.R. was lodged. He has also stated that the accused Santosh Pathak died on 17.3.2002 during treatment, and Uma Shankar Pandey had died on 12.3.2002 itself. He submitted the charge-sheet showing the accused Akhilesh Singh as an absconder. He has also stated about the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that he had not recorded the statement of any family member of the deceased Uma Shankar Pandey, and all the witnesses whose statements he had recorded, had supported the prosecution case. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 16. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which all the materials, that had come against him in evidence, were put to him, which he has denied. He has, however, admitted that he had absconded in January 2002, from Jamshedpur Court, as he had a threat to his life. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the materials on record, the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below as aforesaid, and while passing the impugned Order of sentence, the Trial Court has also taken into consideration the criminal antecedents of appellant Akhilesh Singh, stating that at that time 12 cases were pending against him. 17. On the basis of the materials on record, the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below as aforesaid, and while passing the impugned Order of sentence, the Trial Court has also taken into consideration the criminal antecedents of appellant Akhilesh Singh, stating that at that time 12 cases were pending against him. 17. Learned senior counsel Sri K.N. Choubey, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that all the material witnesses examined in the case have turned hostile on the point of assault, and even though P.W.-1 Radheshyam Pandey has stated that he had seen the accused Akhilesh Singh at the time of occurrence, fleeing away from the place of occurrence, but in his evidence also, there is no allegation of assault against this accused. He has clearly stated in his cross-examination that he had not seen the accused Akhilesh Singh committing any offence. It is submitted that even the identification of the accused appellant by this witness is absolutely doubtful, as it has come in his evidence that one of the accused was wearing a helmet and the other was wearing a monkey cap. The same is the statement of P.W.-2 Upender Singh also. Accordingly, the accused could not have been identified by any of the witnesses at the place of occurrence. Learned senior counsel further pointed out that even though P.W.-3 Ramesh Ram has stated that the apprehended co-accused Santosh Pathak had informed that the other person was Akhilesh Singh, but this piece of evidence is also unreliable, in as much as, P.W.-4 Kamal Ram has clearly stated that due to his injuries, the said co-accused was not in a position to speak properly, and P.W.-10 Ramjee Pandey has stated that Santosh Pathak had been so baldy assaulted that he was not in a position to speak. As such, any information given by Santosh Pathak about this accused becomes very doubtful and unreliable. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel that the present accused has been wrongly convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, even though there was no material on record to convict the appellant even with the help of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for that offence. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel that the present accused has been wrongly convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, even though there was no material on record to convict the appellant even with the help of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for that offence. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the appellant had already been put to trial for various offences under the Arms Act, including Section 27 of the Arms Act, relating to the same very occurrence, in which he had been acquitted by the Trial Court below. As such, the trial and conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The certified copy of the Judgment of acquittal dated 17.10.2005 passed in G.R. No.531 of 2002 / Tr. No.214 of 2005, acquitting the accused Akhilesh Singh for the offences under the Arms Act, have been produced during the course of arguments. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel that the investigation of the case was not at all fair, in as much as, after the death of the co-accused Santosh Pathak the entire matter was closed relating to him, even though a case ought to have been instituted with respect to his death also, as his death was also a homicidal death. Learned senior counsel accordingly, 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, and in any event the appellant was entitled at least to the benefits of doubt. 18. Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that the presence of the appellant along with the co-accused Santosh Pathak at the time and place of occurrence, is proved by two witnesses in the case, namely, P.W.-1 Radheshyam Pandey who had identified the present appellant at the place of occurrence, and P.W.-3 Ramesh Ram, who has also stated that the apprehended accused informed that his accomplice was Akhilesh Singh. It is submitted by learned counsel that the fact that the deceased Jailor was fatally assaulted by fire arms in the Jail premises, is also supported by the hostile witnesses, though they did not dare to depose against him in the Court, as the accused Akhilesh Singh is a dreaded criminal of the locality, with several cases pending against him, which have also been taken note by the Trial Court below. Even the present occurrence was a high profile case of its time. Learned counsel has also submitted that P.W.-1 Radheshyam Pandey has also proved the motive behind the occurrence. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that even the hostile witnesses have stated about assaulting the deceased Jailor by firearms, and the ocular evidence of the witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-12 Dr. Lallan Choudhary, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-4, which show that there were firearm injuries on the dead body of the deceased, and minimum two rounds of bullets were fired on him. Learned counsel stressed that this is a case in which the Jailor of Sakchi Jail was murdered by the dreaded culprit Akhilesh Singh and his accomplice Santosh Pathak, in such a dare devil manner that none of the Jail officials have dared to fully support the prosecution case due to his fear, but on the basis of the evidence of P.W.-1 Radheshyam Pandey and P.W.-3 Ramesh Ram it is apparent that this accused had taken active part in the commission of murder, for the motive that the Jailor had put this accused in chains while he was in custody in an abduction case, and thereafter he had fled away from the Court. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth any interference by this Court. 19. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the materials on record, as also the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court below, we find that upon appraisal of the evidence on record, the Trial Court has found that there is evidence on record to show that two persons entered into the campus of Sakchi Jail. They went towards the quarter of Uma Shankar Pandey. They went towards the quarter of Uma Shankar Pandey. There was conversation between Uma Shankar Pandey, and those two culprits, who shot fire on Uma Shankar Pandey and attempted to escape, but Santosh Pathak was caught hold by the general public and the other person managed to escape. As such, the homicidal death of Uma Shankar Pandey was caused by two persons, who had entered the Sakchi Jail. P.W.-1 Radheshyam Pandey has identified the accused Akhilesh Singh as also Santosh Pathak to be the persons who had entered the Jail premises, and were fleeing away from there, and P.W.-3 Ramesh Ram has clearly stated that upon being apprehended, Santosh Pathak informed that the other person with him was Akhilesh Singh. The submission of the learned senior counsel that the accused could not be identified due to the fact that one of the accused was wearing a helmet and the other was wearing a monkey cap, and their identification is absolutely doubtful and unreliable, is of no help to the defence, in as much as, the accused Akhilesh Singh was a very known figure to all the jail officials and inmates, as he was an inmate in the same jail earlier, and even the co-accused Santosh Pathak had informed, upon being apprehended, that the other person was Akhilesh Singh and no one else. The submission of learned senior counsel that P.W.-4 Kamal Ram and P.W.-10 Ramjee Pandey have stated that Santosh Pathak was not in a position to speak, is also of no consequence, in as much as, P.W.-4 Kamal Ram has stated that he had only difficulty in speaking. The fact remains that Santosh Pathak was alive for five days, and he died only on 17.3.2002, and as such there could be no doubt that this accused was in a position at least to state, as to who was with him. Indeed, only the statement of the co-accused is not there, rather it is also supported by the evidence of P.W.-1 Radheshyam Pandey, who had identified both the accused persons there. The evidence on record shows that one assault was made by Santosh Pathak by fire arm on the deceased, and thereafter the witnesses have stated that they had seen the accused persons fleeing away. The evidence on record shows that one assault was made by Santosh Pathak by fire arm on the deceased, and thereafter the witnesses have stated that they had seen the accused persons fleeing away. The submission of the learned counsel that P.W.-1 Radheshyam Pandey has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen the accused Akhilesh Singh committing any offence and he had only seen him running away, is also not of much help to the defence, in as much as, this witness has clearly stated in his evidence that both the accused persons, Akhilesh Singh and Santosh Pathak had entered the jail premises, and there was an altercation with the Jailor Uma Shankar Pandey, when he was assaulted. His admission in the cross-examination can only mean that he had not seen this accused making any overt act. However, the fact remains that only two witnesses, P.W.-1 Radheshyam Pandey and P.W.-3 Ramesh Ram could muster some courage to support the case against this accused even to this extent, which even his senior officer could not dare. Going through the materials on record, we are of the considered view that the cumulative effect of the evidence of these two witnesses is that the accused Akhilesh Singh had entered the Jail premises with the co-accused Santosh Pathak, with the common intention to commit the murder of the Jailor Uma Shankar Pandey, which they did. 20. In the FIR there is allegation against the accused Akhilesh Singh also to have fired upon the deceased, but none of the witnesses could muster the courage to state this fact in the Court, but there is evidence on the record that one fire was made by Santosh Pathak, and in his cross-examination P.W.-12 Dr. Lallan Choudhary has clearly stated that minimum two rounds of bullets were fired on the deceased, which supports the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R., that the author of the other fire arm injury was this accused and no one else, as there is evidence on record to show that only two persons had entered the jail premises to commit the offence. We are of the considered view that on the basis of the evidence on record the prosecution has been able to bring the charge against the accused Akhilesh Singh for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubts and there can be no interference in the impugned Judgment of conviction of this accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the Trial Court below. 21. So far the conviction of the appellant Akhilesh Singh for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, we find from the certified copy of the Judgment dated 17.10.1005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in G.R. No. 531 of 2002 / Tr. No. 214 of 2005, copy whereof had been produced during the arguments, that the accused had faced the trial for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) / 35, 26 / 35 and 27 of the Arms Act, arising out of the same occurrence. Even the I.O., P.W.-13 Riseshwar Dayal has stated in his evidence that for the recovery of the firearms and ammunitions, a separate case was instituted. Though we are surprised as to why this accused was put to trial in the said separately instituted case, when admittedly, he was neither apprehended at the spot, nor there was any recovery from him, and as such the trial of this appellant in a separate case for the offences under the Arms Act, was thus, absolutely uncalled for, but the fact remains that this accused had been tried for the same offence, and was acquitted of the charge. There is a complete bar in Section 300 of the Cr.P.C., for the subsequent trial for the same offence. As such, the impugned Judgment of conviction, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 22. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 24th December, 2005, and Order of sentence dated 2nd January, 2006, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in S.T. No. 445 of 2004, convicting and sentencing the appellant, Akhilesh Singh for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. His conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, are, hereby, set aside, for the reasons stated above. The appellant Akhilesh Singh is already in custody, undergoing the sentence. 23. This brings us to the consideration of the criminal antecedents of the appellant Akhilesh Singh. The Trial Court below has taken note of the fact of his criminal antecedents, stating that at that time 12 cases were pending against him. It has come in evidence, and also admitted by the accused himself in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., that he had absconded during the trial. Not only that, rather during the pendency of this appeal also, he was granted provisional bail by order dated 25.6.2007, on the ground of illness of his parents, and he was also granted regular bail by order dated 14.8.2007. While on bail, this accused again allegedly made a daredevil murderous attack on 20.3.2008, on the Hon'ble Judge of the Trial Court, who had convicted him in this case. The Judge had received serious fire arm injuries, but fortunately his life could be saved. Sakchi P.S. Case No.64 of 2008 was instituted for that offence, against this accused, and presently, the matter is pending trial in the competent Court. When this matter was brought to the knowledge of this Court, his bail was cancelled by order dated 3.7.2008 passed in this appeal. Subsequently, by order dated 24.01.2014, he was again granted bail by this Court, with the condition that both his bailers should be Government servants, noting the admission by the counsel for the appellant, that there were 33 cases against him, out of which two cases had been quashed. The appellant again jumped the bail, and the bailers, who were Government servants, were noticed. It was found that his bailers were police officials, and they expressed their willingness to deposit the surety amount of Rs.50,000/-each, stating that they were unable to produce the accused, as they did not know him personally. It was only when by order dated 6.3.2017, the Director General of Police was directed to initiate departmental proceedings against those police officials, this accused could be apprehended and produced in the Court. It was only when by order dated 6.3.2017, the Director General of Police was directed to initiate departmental proceedings against those police officials, this accused could be apprehended and produced in the Court. Taking into consideration his past conduct, we sought information from the Directorate of Prosecution, Government of Jharkhand, about the criminal antecedents of this appellant, and we are informed by letter dated 22.4.2019, that he had been made accused in 59 criminal cases in all. Though some of these cases might have ended in acquittal / quashing, but his criminal antecedents clearly show that he is a dreaded criminal, and is a source of continuous threat to the society, and even the Judge convicting him in this case was not spared. Accordingly, we hereby, clarify that the sentence of imprisonment for life, imposed upon the appellant Akhilesh Singh, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, shall, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Swamy Shraddananda (2) Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2008) 13 SCC 767 : 2008 (4) JLJR(SC) 122, mean imprisonment for whole of his biological life, without any remission. Let the letter dated 22.4.2019, received from the Directorate of Prosecution, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, be kept on record. 24. Before parting with this Judgment, we wish to record that the family members of the deceased Uma Shankar Pandey, though have not been made witness in the case, are the real victims of crime. We do not know whether they have been compensated in any manner by the State Government or not, but they are entitled to be compensated under the 'Victim Compensation Scheme', under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We, accordingly, direct the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Service Authority, Ranchi, to take up the matter with the concerned District Legal Services Authority, so that the family members of late Uma Shankar Pandey may be duly compensated under the Victim Compensation Scheme, at an early date. We make it clear that this compensation shall be in addition to any compensation that might have been given to the family members of the deceased family by the State Government, about which we have no information. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, for the needful. 25. We make it clear that this compensation shall be in addition to any compensation that might have been given to the family members of the deceased family by the State Government, about which we have no information. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, for the needful. 25. We also cannot shut our eyes from the fact that P.W.-2 Upender Singh, P.W.-4 Kamal Ram, who were the wardens in the Jail, and P.W.-15 Narendra Prasad Singh, the Assistant Jailor, who were the eye witnesses to the occurrence, and have either turned hostile or have not supported the prosecution case, could not have done so, being the persons of disciplined service, and they were expected to depose in the Trial Court below, fearlessly and truthfully, showing some sense of bravery and courage, which are the sine qua non qualifications for their service, but they are so coward that they forgot that their own colleague had been murdered in a daredevil manner by the accused persons, entering into jail premises, and this misfortune could have befallen them also. It is apparent that their conduct is only shameful and ought not be tolerated. However, without making any further comments on their conduct, we leave it for the State Government to consider whether appropriate departmental action should be taken against these officials. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State, Principal Secretary to the State Government in its Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, and the I.G. Prisons, for the needful. 26. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed, with modification in conviction and sentence, as aforesaid, and with directions and observations as above. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.