In Sunil Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's division bench of Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and Alok Kumar Pandey quashed and set aside the judgment of conviction dated June 8, 2018 and order of sentence dated June 13, 2018, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-IInd, Munger, in Sessions Trial No.241 of 2017, arising out of Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No.81 of 2017. The High Court's 24-page long judgement reads: "The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by the Trial Court. He is directed to be released from jail custody forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case" because prosecution failed to prove the place of occurrence, the manner of occurrence and the time of occurrence. It miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant. The Trial Court has committed grave error while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. The verdict was authored by Justice Pancholi.
The appeal was filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) against the impugned judgment of conviction whereby the Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the present appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, on failure to deposit the same, the appellant shall serve simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant was to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and, in default of payment of fine, he shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
The prosecution story states that Fard-beyan of the informant, Savita Devi, wife of Sushant Kumar @ Fantush Yadav (deceased) came to be recorded on April 15, 2017 at 7 A.M. The informant has mainly stated that her husband Fantush Yadav returned to house at around 1A.M. in the night after watching day-night cricket match in the village and called her to open the gate, when she opened the gate, she saw that her elder brother-in-law (bhaisur) Sunil (appellant) and Khabri were standing there having pistol and cartridge. Sunil and Khabri shot at her husband in her presence. Her husband died there. When she started weeping, Sunil closed her inside the room and threatened her not to make noise else she and her children will be killed. It is further state in the fard-beyan that when she came out of the house after the door was opened, villagers and police were present there. Who opened the door, she does not know. On the basis of the aforesaid fard-beyan given by informant (Savita Devi), formal FIR came to be lodged in Kasim Bazar Police Station at 9:30 A.M. After registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating Agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the necessary evidence. Prior to that inquest report was prepared on the spot and dead body of the deceased was sent for conducting the post mortem. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused/appellant and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the appellant/accused before the Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate committed the same to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Cr.PC, where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No.241 of 2017. At the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. The defence judgment and order against which the appellant was preferred.
The High Court has recorded that there is a delay of six hours in lodging the FIR, though the informant has projected herself as an eye-witness. It observed: "we are of the view that the medical evidence does not support the version given by the informant" because she as a eye-witness claimed that the firing was made from point blank range which is contrary to what Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased, revealed. He deposed that he found circular lacerated wound ½ centimeter x ½
centimeter above the right eyeball with charring around the wound of entry, wound of entry had inverted margin deep to cranium. The doctor found charring around the wound of entry. He revealed that if a gunshot injury is caused by touching the skin of the injured/deceased, then it will be burnt and if gunshot injury is caused from some distance, then charring mark will be caused around the injury. In the present case, the Doctor found charring around the wound of entry. It means, the gunshot injury has been caused from some distance.
The High Court has recorded that according to the Doctor, death was caused within 24 hours. From the post-mortem report, it transpires that the doctor received the dead body at 09:30 A.M. and commenced the post-mortem at 10:45 A.M. But the informant claimed that the incident took place during night hours at 1 A.M. The medical evidence does not corroborate the version given by the so-called eye-witness, PW-4 who is the informant and the wife of the the deceased.
The Court has also noted that Investigating Officer has admitted that blood was not found at the place of occurrence. "Even if blood was present at the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer did not collect the blood or blood stained soil from the place of occurrence." It has recorded that "the so-called fire-arm used by the appellant at the time of occurrence has not been seized by the Investigating Agency. There is no recovery/discovery of the murder weapon in the present case." It underlined that near relatives of the deceased have been projected as eye-witnesses. From the other evidence led by the prosecution, it was inferred that the incident took place at some other place and thereafter the dead body was brought to the door of the deceased. The Court observed that deposition given by near relative of the deceased, who have projected themselves as eye- witnesses, is not trustworthy and reliable, hence, the same is required to be discarded. It was informed that the deceased was having criminal antecedents and number of cases have been registered against him.
No comments:
Post a Comment