On October 1, 2024, Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Jitendra Kumar approved the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Siwan in a murder case of February 2017. The Trial Court had found three accused, namely, Deeplal Rai, Anil Rai and Krishna Rai guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 341/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302 of the IPC and simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of the IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The Trial Court had also recommended Siwan District Legal Services Authority to pay compensation to the victims of the crime, namely, Kunti Devi, Pratima Kumari and Sita Kumari as per Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 under Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). There were four accused in the case but the case of Shiv Kumar, one of the accused was separated for conducting inquiry regarding his juvenility.
In Diplal Rai vs. The State of Bihar, the High Court observed that the Trial Court was right in directing Siwan District Legal Services Authority to pay compensation to the victim of the crime becuase the commission of murder has been well proved by the evidence on record. The deceased, Dularchand Rai was done to death by injury caused by knife and he is survived by his widow Kanti Devi and his two daughters, Pratima Kumari and Sita Kumari. There is no dispute that the widow/informant Kanti Devi and two daughters Pratima Kumari and Sita Kumari are victims in terms of Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC), as per which the victim includes legal heirs of the deceased. The judgement was authored by Justice Jitendra Kumar.
Section 2 (wa) reads: "victim" means a person
who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or
omission for which the accused person has been charged and the
expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir. This definition was inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008.
The High Court observed: "The widow has lost not only her husband but even her dependency on him. The two daughters have also lost their father losing not only love and affection of their father but even their dependency upon him. Hence, the widow and her two daughters deserve succor from the State, who has failed to protect the fundamental right of the deceased to live. Accordingly, all the victims are entitled to get compensation as per Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 as made under Section 357A Cr.PC."
Section 357 A reads: "Victim compensation scheme.-- (1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.
(2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied, that the compensation awarded under section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for compensation.
(4) Where the offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified, and where no trial takes place, the victim or his dependents may make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation.
(5) On receipt of such recommendations or on the application under sub-section (4), the State or the District Legal Services Authority shall, after due enquiry award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two months.
(6) The State or the District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, to alleviate the suffering of the victim, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer in charge of the police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned, or any other interim relief as the appropriate authority deems fit."
The
High Court referred to some principles of appreciation of evidence
before concluding its judgment. It is settled principle of law that the
evidence of any relative or family members cannot be discarded only on account of his or her relationship with the deceased. The evidence of such witnesses has to be weighed on the touchstone of truth and at most the court is required to take care and caution while appreciating their evidence. In this regard, one may refer to the following judicial precedents:
(i) Abhishek Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1358;
(ii) Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh & Ors; (2017) 11 SCC 195;
(iii) Mano Dutt and another Vs. State of UP;(2012) 4 SCC 79;
(iv) Daulatram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2009 (1) JIJ 1;
(v) State Vs. Saravanan, (AIR 2009 SC 152);
(vi) State of U.P. v. Kishanpal, (2008) 16 SCC 73;
(vii) Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra,(2007) 14 SCC 150;
(viii) State of A.P. Vs. S. Rayappa,. (2006) 4 SCC 512;
(ix) Pulicherla Nagaraju Vs. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444;
(x) Harbans Kaur Vs. State of Haryana; (2005) 9 SCC 195;
(xi) Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of AP, (1981) 3 SCC 675
(xii) Piara Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452
It is also settled principle of law that prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground that the independent witnesses have not been examined because as per experience, civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. The Court is therefore required to appreciate the evidence of even related witnesses on its own merit, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witnesses. (Refer to Appabhai and another Vs. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp SCC 241).
This is also settled principle of law that minor discrepancies, contradictions, improvements, embellishments or omissions on trivial matters not going to the root of the prosecution case should not be given undue importance. But if they relate to material particulars of the prosecution case, the testimony of such witnesses is liable to be discarded. In this regard, one may refer to the following judicial precedents:
(i) C. Muniappan & others Vs. State of T.N.,(2010) 9 SCC 567;
(ii) State of U.P. Vs. Krishan Master, (AIR 2010 SC 3071);
(iii) Appabhai & Anr. Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1988 SC 696;
(iv)Shivaji S. Bobade & Anr Vs. State Of Maharashtra, (1973 AIR 2622);
(v) Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 1077;
(vi) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dal Singh, (2013) 14 SCC 159;
(vii) Smt. Shamim Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi), 2018 (4) PLJR 160;
(viii) S. Govidaarju Vs. State of Karnataka, 2013 (10) SCALE 454
(ix) Narotam Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Anr. (AIR 1978 SC 1542)
(x) Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525;
(xi) Subal Ghorai and Ors. Vs. State of WB, (2013) 4 SCC 607;
(xii) Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors., (2017) 11 SCC 195.
In its 27 page long verdict, the High Court ordered that if Siwan District Legal Services Authority has not paid the compensation to the victims, "it is directed to pay the compensation to the victims without losing further time within two months from the receipt of this order. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to Siwan District Legal Services Authority also."
No comments:
Post a Comment