IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. APP (DB) No.136 of 2011
BIPIN RAI @ BIPIN ROY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
3 31-03-2011 This appeal has been listed “for orders” after
receipt of lower court records for considering appellant’s
prayer for bail. The appellant has been convicted for an
offence u/s 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced to
imprisonment for life and further conviction is u/s 27 of
the Arms Act for which a sentence of three years R.I has
been awarded but it is to run concurrently.
A perusal of the judgement under appeal
reveals that learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, V, Jamui has taken pains to
discuss all the relevant facts and has also noticed that the
injury reports with respects to three witnesses, P. Ws, 2,
5 and 8 who sustained injuries as per initial version of
the FIR, are available in the case diary but have not been
proved by the prosecution. He further noted that there is
discrepancy between oral evidence and the medical
evidence. The consistent evidence of the alleged injured
witnesses corroborates the earliest version in the FIR that
this appellant fired on the chest of the deceased causing
2
death. The doctor has found penetrating injury on the
chest but has described as one caused by any other arm
but not fire arm. This is in contradiction to the opinion of
the I.O. in the inquest report but the inquest report which
is available in the case diary has also not been proved
and brought on record because of non examination of the
I.O.
Although the learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, V, Jamui has taken
pains and has convicted the accused person but he has
been negligent in not ensuring that materials available on
record and necessary for dispensing justice should be
brought on record by the prosecution.
In view of aforesaid facts, let lower court
records be sent down to the learned trial court for
recording further necessary evidence so that the inquest
and injury reports of the witnesses who got injuries as
per FIR are brought on record in accordance with law.
All steps shall be taken by learned trial court to procure
the attendance of I.O. for his examination as a witness.
For this first bailable warrant and after two months non
bailable warrant shall be issued with responsibility fixed
3
upon Superintendent of Police, Jamui to ensure that I.O.
is brought before the court below. Similar steps shall be
taken with respect to the doctor who had prepared injury
reports of the injured. It may be open for the prosecution
to take necessary steps for bringing the relevant materials
on record through formal witnesses if the I.O. or doctor
is reported to be dead or not traceable.
The aforesaid steps be taken by the trial court
and further evidence recorded should be sent to this court
without any delay, preferably, within six months.
Put up the prayer of the appellant for bail after
six months as soon as lower court records are received
back.
It goes without saying that examination of
further witnesses in the light of this order shall be done
as per law giving liberty to the defence to cross examine
them if they so like.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
BKS/-
(Gopal Prasad, J.)