{"id":183526,"date":"2008-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-06-16T22:42:07","modified_gmt":"2017-06-16T17:12:07","slug":"state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"State Of Bihar vs Ganesh Singh on 29 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Bihar vs Ganesh Singh on 29 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh<\/div>\n
                   Death Reference No. 9 of 2007\n                                With\n                Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1187 of 2007\n                                With\n                Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1188 of 2007\n                                 ***\n<\/pre>\n
      Reference made by Sri Abhay Kumar, Additional District
\n      & Sessions Judge, Fast Track court No.1,Katihar, through
\n      Letter No. 397 dated 25th August, 2007 and appeal against
\n      the judgment and order dated 23rd and 24th August, 2007,
\n      respectively passed by Sri Abhay Kumar,Additional Dist.
\n      & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1,Katihar, in S.T.
\n      No. 178\/2006 \/T.R. No.72 of 2006.\n<\/p>\n
                                 ***
\nIn Death Reference No. 9 of 2007:\n<\/p>\n
The State of Bihar                                      ... Appellant\n                               Versus\nGanesh Singh                                          ...Respondent\n\nIn Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 2007:\n\nGanesh Singh                                            ... Appellant\n                               Versus\nThe State of Bihar                                    ...Respondent\n\nIn Criminal Appeal No. 1188 of 2007:\n\nRam Dulari Devi @ Dulari Devi                          ... Appellant\n                            Versus\nThe State of Bihar                                   ... Respondent\n                              ***\n\nFor the Appellant        : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.\n                           (In Death Ref. No. 9\/2007)\n\n                          Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate with\n                          M\/s Sumant Singh & Aruni Singh,\n                          Advocates\n                          (In Cr. Appeal No. 1187 & 1188 of 2007)\n\nFor the Respondent       : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr.Advocate with\n                           M\/s Sumant Singh & Aruni Singh,\n                           Advocates (In Death Ref. No. 9 \/2007)\n                                                                              -2-<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                                    Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.\n                                    (In Cr. Appeal No.1187 & 1188 of 2007)\n                                            ***\n                             P R E S E N T\n                       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh\n                                       &\n                    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam\n                                      ***\n\nS.M.M.Alam,J.         Death reference under consideration and Cr. Appeal nos.\n\n<\/pre>\n
          1187 of 2007 and 1188 of 2007 arise out of the same judgment dated<\/p>\n
          23rd August, 2007 and order dated 24th August, 2007, passed by Sri<\/p>\n
          Abhay Kumar, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track<\/p>\n
          Court No.1, Katihar, in Sessions Trial No.178 of 2006\/ T.R. No.72 of<\/p>\n
          2006 whereby he has been pleased to convict both the appellants<\/p>\n
          under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has further been<\/p>\n
          pleased to pass sentence of death by hanging till death against convict<\/p>\n
          Ganesh Singh and against appellant Ram Dulari Devi @ Dulari Devi<\/p>\n
          he has passed the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life<\/p>\n
          and to pay fine of rupees ten thousand and in default thereof to<\/p>\n
          undergo further simple imprisonment for two months.<\/p>\n
          2.          The prosecution case, as per the written report (Ext.3)<\/p>\n
          submitted by Narendra Prasad Singh (P.W.6) in Mansahi P.S.<\/p>\n
          (Katihar) on 14.11.2005, in brief, is that on that date when the<\/p>\n
          informant, P.W.6 was in the banana field situated in front of his<\/p>\n
          village Bari Bathna, P.S. Mansahi, Dist.: Katihar, and had engaged<\/p>\n
          some labourers to do cultivation work in the field, his elder son came
\n                                                                  -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
running towards him. The time was 11’O clock. His son told him that<\/p>\n
appellant Ganesh Singh was cutting his mother by Hasua. On getting<\/p>\n
the said information from his son, P.W.6, the informant came running<\/p>\n
to his house and saw appellant Ganesh Singh holding his wife Sarika<\/p>\n
Devi (deceased) by her hair. He was inflicting Hasua blow on her<\/p>\n
body and was dragging her by catching her hair. The informant also<\/p>\n
saw the wife of Ganesh Singh, his two sons present there armed with<\/p>\n
“Bhala” and “Dabiya”. As soon as the informant arrived there and<\/p>\n
wanted to intervene the appellant Ganesh Singh rushed towards him<\/p>\n
with Hasua in his hand then the informant raised hulla, whereupon,<\/p>\n
the appellant fled away. On hearing hulla, his neighbour Parikshan<\/p>\n
Singh along with his wife came there besides Umesh Singh, Sakmu<\/p>\n
Mian and Rustam Mian and saw the appellant Umesh Singh running<\/p>\n
away after committing the crime. At the time of occurrence, the<\/p>\n
informant’s brother-in-law Ashok Singh, P.W.1, was present at his<\/p>\n
house, who was about to proceed to Gramin Bank for depositing the<\/p>\n
money. He also witnessed the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
3.          On submission of the written report in Mansahi P.S.,<\/p>\n
Mansahi P.S. case no.71 of 2005 dated 14.11.2005 under section<\/p>\n
302\/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and a formal FIR<\/p>\n
(Ext.11) was drawn up against both the appellants and their two sons.<\/p>\n
After institution of the case, the investigation was handed over to<\/p>\n
P.W.13, Sachidanand Singh, who investigated the case but charge
\n                                                                      -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
sheet was submitted by Sri Ashok Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police of<\/p>\n
the said police station, against all the four accused of this case on the<\/p>\n
basis of which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of<\/p>\n
the offence against all the four accused of the said case but later on<\/p>\n
trial of two sons of the appellants, who were minor at that time, were<\/p>\n
separated and they were sent to Juvenile Court for trial. Thus, only<\/p>\n
two appellants were put on trial and they were convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced by the impugned judgment as stated above.<\/p>\n
4.           The defence case as it is disclosed from the trend of<\/p>\n
cross-examination as well as the statement of the accused recorded<\/p>\n
under section 313 Cr.P.C. is that the appellants were falsely<\/p>\n
implicated in this case due to land dispute between the parties and no<\/p>\n
such occurrence in the manner as alleged by the prosecution had taken<\/p>\n
place.\n<\/p>\n
5.           In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined<\/p>\n
altogether sixteen witnesses in this case, namely, Ashok Singh (PW1),<\/p>\n
Parikshan Singh (PW2), Rajendra Singh (PW3), Bhola Rai (PW4),<\/p>\n
Rakesh Kumar (PW5), Narendra Prasad Singh (PW6), Ranjeet Kumar<\/p>\n
(PW7), Alok Kumar (PW8), Dr. Om Prakash Singh (PW9), Nishant<\/p>\n
Kumar (PW10), Rajendra Singh (PW11), Raghunandan Paswan<\/p>\n
(PW12), Sacchita Nand Singh (PW13), Ashok Kumar (PW14), Nasir<\/p>\n
(PW15) and Pradeep Kumar Rai (PW16). The defence has also<\/p>\n
examined one witness, namely, Janardhan Singh (DW1).
\n                                                                     -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
6.           Besides the oral evidence some papers have also been<\/p>\n
brought on records on behalf of the prosecution which are exhibits.<\/p>\n
Ext.1 is the inquest report of the deceased, Ext.2 is the seizure list,<\/p>\n
Ext.2\/a is another seizure list, Ext.3 is fard bayan, Ext.4 is post<\/p>\n
mortem report, Ext.5 is signature of the Officer-in-charge on the FIR,<\/p>\n
Ext.6 is the SD entry, Ext.7 is the endorsement on written report,<\/p>\n
Ext.8 is Malkhana register, Ext.9 is signature of the Officer-in-charge<\/p>\n
over charge sheet, Ext.10 is charge-sheet and Ext.11 is the formal<\/p>\n
FIR. Besides the above exhibits, there are two material exhibits i.e.<\/p>\n
one Dabiya (Material Ext.1) and one Bhala (Material Ext.2).<\/p>\n
7.           In this case, P.W.1 Ashok Kumar Singh, who happens to<\/p>\n
be the brother in law of the informant, PW2 Parikshan Singh, a<\/p>\n
neighbour of the informant, PW6 informant Narendra Pd. Singh and<\/p>\n
PW10 Nishant Kumar, son of the informant and deceased are the eye<\/p>\n
witnesses of the occurrence and, as such, their testimony are very vital<\/p>\n
for arriving at the right conclusion. The rest witnesses, who are co-<\/p>\n
villagers of the informant, are either hear say witnesses or part eye<\/p>\n
witnesses. First of all, I would like to incorporate the evidence of<\/p>\n
PW6, who is the informant of this case. His evidence is as follows:<\/p>\n
Deceased Sarika Devi was his wife. The occurrence took place on<\/p>\n
14.11.2005 in between 10-11 AM. At that time, he was watching the<\/p>\n
work done by the labourers in his banana field situated at a distance of<\/p>\n
about 200 yards east of his house. At that time, his younger son
\n                                                                    -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
Nishant Kumar @ Bittu came there shouting and told him that<\/p>\n
appellant Ganesh Singh, his wife Dulari Devi and his two sons Manoj<\/p>\n
Kumar and Rabindra Kumar were cutting his Mummy (mother),<\/p>\n
whereupon, he rushed towards his house. He has further deposed that<\/p>\n
when he arrived there he saw appellant Ganesh Singh holding his wife<\/p>\n
by her hair and dragging her. He was giving repeated blow on her<\/p>\n
body by Hasua. By that time, his wife had fallen down. As soon as he<\/p>\n
arrived there and enquired what was happening, the appellant Ganesh<\/p>\n
Singh rushed towards him with Hasua in his hand and shouted that he<\/p>\n
would also be cut, whereupon, he (PW6) ran towards the road raising<\/p>\n
hulla. On hulla, people of the locality, namely, Parikshan Singh (PW<\/p>\n
2), Sakmu Mian, Rustam Mian, Nasir Mian rushed towards his house.<\/p>\n
His brother-in-law Ashok Singh (PW 1) also started raising hulla. On<\/p>\n
arrival of the witnesses and the people of the locality, the appellants<\/p>\n
along with their sons fled away. While they were fleeing away, the<\/p>\n
wife of Ganesh Singh assaulted his wife with Bhala. The informant as<\/p>\n
well as the witnesses tried to catch hold of Ganesh Singh but he fled<\/p>\n
away with Hasua riding on a bicycle. After fleeing away of appellant<\/p>\n
Ganesh Singh, he went near his wife but by that time she was already<\/p>\n
dead. Thereafter, he gave written statement with regard to the alleged<\/p>\n
occurrence to the police. The written statement of the informant has<\/p>\n
been marked Ext.3. He has further deposed that the Sub-Inspector had<\/p>\n
prepared inquest report of the dead body of his wife in presence of
\n                                                                    -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
Alok Kumar (PW 8) and Rakesh Kumar (PW 5) and both had put<\/p>\n
their signature on the inquest report. He has further deposed that the<\/p>\n
Sub-Inspector had also seized blood stained earth, blood stained Bhala<\/p>\n
and some broken bangles as per the seizure list prepared by him which<\/p>\n
was signed by PW 8 Alok Kumar and PW 5 Rakesh Kumar.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector sent the dead body for post mortem. PW<\/p>\n
6 has also identified appellants Ganesh Singh and Dulari Devi in<\/p>\n
dock. In cross-examination, this witness has deposed that he had no<\/p>\n
land dispute with Ganesh Singh. At paragraph 10 his attention was<\/p>\n
drawn by the learned defence counsel that he had stated before the<\/p>\n
police that there was land dispute between him and appellant Ganesh<\/p>\n
Singh to which he denied but paragraph 6 of PW 13 (Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer) establishes that PW 6 had stated before the police that he had<\/p>\n
land dispute with appellant Ganesh Singh. The defence has drawn his<\/p>\n
attention that in the written statement he has not stated that his son<\/p>\n
Nishant had told him that the appellant Ganesh Singh along with his<\/p>\n
wife and two children, namely, Manoj Kumar and Rabindra Kumar<\/p>\n
were cutting his Mummy to which he replied that he had made the<\/p>\n
said statement in his written statement. However, the perusal of the<\/p>\n
written statement (Ext.3) shows that about assault by Dulari Devi wife<\/p>\n
of Ganesh Singh and her two sons there is no mention in it. Thus, the<\/p>\n
evidence of the informant shows that he for the first time introduced<\/p>\n
in court the story of assault to the deceased by appellant no.2 Dulari
\n                                                                   -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
Devi wife of Ganesh Singh and her two children Manoj Kumar and<\/p>\n
Rabindra Kumar which story does not find mentioned in the written<\/p>\n
statement (Ext.3) of PW 6. Likewise, it appears that PW 6 has also<\/p>\n
disowned his statement made under section 161 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure with regard to the fact that there was land dispute<\/p>\n
between him and appellant Ganesh Singh.\n<\/p>\n
8.          The next important witness on the point of occurrence is<\/p>\n
PW 10 Nishant Kumar, who is the son of the informant as well as the<\/p>\n
deceased. According to the case of the prosecution, he was the first<\/p>\n
person, who had given information about the occurrence to PW 6.<\/p>\n
This witness is aged about only ten years old and, so, he is a child<\/p>\n
witness. His evidence is that Sarika Devi was his mother. She has<\/p>\n
been murdered by appellant Ganesh Singh. The said occurrence had<\/p>\n
taken place about one year ago and he was eye witness of the said<\/p>\n
occurrence. Time was 11 AM. At that time, he was playing in the<\/p>\n
bamboo clump adjacent to his house. At that time, his Mummy was<\/p>\n
inside her house. Ashok Singh (PW 1), who happens to be his Fufa,<\/p>\n
came to his house. Thereafter, his Mummy came out of his house for<\/p>\n
giving fodder to goat. His Mummy called him and then he came from<\/p>\n
bamboo clump and stood near the mango tree. Thereafter, his Mummy<\/p>\n
started combing her hair. At that moment, appellant Ganesh Singh<\/p>\n
having Hasua and stone in his hand came near his Mummy and firstly<\/p>\n
he threw stone on his Mummy. His mummy escaped unhurt and then
\n                                                                   -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant Ganesh Singh caught hold of his mummy by her hair from<\/p>\n
behind and started cutting (attacking) her with Hasua. His Mummy<\/p>\n
raised hulla, whereupon, his Fufa came out from inside the room.<\/p>\n
Then Ganesh Singh started dragging away his Mummy giving Hasua<\/p>\n
blows to her. He dragged his Mummy up to his Darwaza and then two<\/p>\n
sons of Ganesh Singh and his wife also started assaulting his Mummy<\/p>\n
with their weapons. He rushed to call his father, who was working in<\/p>\n
the field. His father came running on hearing about the incident. His<\/p>\n
father also raised hulla and then Ganesh Singh ran towards his father<\/p>\n
to assault him. On raising hulla by his father, people started<\/p>\n
assembling and then Ganesh Singh, his wife and children fled away.<\/p>\n
After that he along with his father went near his Mummy, who was<\/p>\n
already dead. After the occurrence, the Sub-Inspector came there who<\/p>\n
took his statement. PW 1 has also identified accused Ganesh Singh in<\/p>\n
dock and claimed to have identified the other accused. At paragraph 8<\/p>\n
of his cross-examination, he has deposed that PW 2 Parikshan Singh<\/p>\n
and appellant Ganesh Singh are his neighbours. This witness has also<\/p>\n
denied this fact that there was previous enmity between his father and<\/p>\n
appellant Ganesh Singh.\n<\/p>\n
9.          The next important witness on the point of occurrence is<\/p>\n
PW 1 Ashok Singh. He happens to be the brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of<\/p>\n
the informant. His evidence is that the alleged occurrence took place<\/p>\n
on 14.9.2005 at 10.45 AM. At that time, he was at the house of his\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
brother-in-law Narendra Prasad Singh (informant). At that time, the<\/p>\n
wife of Narendra Prasad Singh was combing her hair standing near<\/p>\n
the stair. He heard the cry of Sarika Devi (wife of Narendra Prasad<\/p>\n
Singh), whereupon, he came out of the house and saw appellant<\/p>\n
Ganesh Singh attacking her with Hasua. Sarika Devi (deceased) was<\/p>\n
trying to run away. At that time, two sons of Ganesh Singh and the<\/p>\n
wife of Ganesh Singh were also present there and they were also<\/p>\n
assaulting the deceased Sarika Devi with their weapons. He started<\/p>\n
raising hulla and the son of Narendra Prasad Singh rushed towards the<\/p>\n
field to call his father, who was working in his banana field at that<\/p>\n
time. Narnedra Prasad Singh (informant) came running there and<\/p>\n
seeing the occurrence he also raised hulla. Appellant Ganesh Singh<\/p>\n
threatened him that if he came near him then he would also be cut. On<\/p>\n
hulla, people of the locality assembled and then appellant Ganesh<\/p>\n
Singh along with his wife and children fled away. Thereafter, he went<\/p>\n
near Sarika Devi, who was found dead. There were altogether 30-40<\/p>\n
sharp cutting injuries on her body. Amongst the witnesses he<\/p>\n
identified Parikshan Singh (PW 2), who was neighbour of the<\/p>\n
informant. He was first to reach there on hulla. He had also identified<\/p>\n
Rustam Mian (not examined). He has further deposed that the Sub-<\/p>\n
Inspector had prepared inquest report of the dead body and had also<\/p>\n
seized the bhala. The hair of Sarika Devi and blood were found<\/p>\n
scattered at the place of occurrence. In paragraph 10 of his cross-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
examination, he has deposed that the house of Parikshan Singh (PW<\/p>\n
2), Rajendra Singh, Baleshwar Singh, Tarkeshwar Singh, Mahadeo<\/p>\n
Singh, Sahdeo Singh, Mahabir Singh, Rustam Mian (all not<\/p>\n
examined) are adjacent to the PO house. This witness has also denied<\/p>\n
this fact that he had stated before the police that there was enmity<\/p>\n
between informant Narendra Prasad Singh and appellant Ganesh<\/p>\n
Singh from before but the Investigating Officer has accepted that this<\/p>\n
witness had stated before him with regard to the enmity between the<\/p>\n
informant and appellant Ganesh Singh.\n<\/p>\n
10.         Another eye witness Parikshan Singh (PW 2) is the next<\/p>\n
door neighbour of the informant as well as the appellant Ganesh Singh<\/p>\n
and it appears from his deposition that he is not related either with<\/p>\n
Narnedra Prasad Singh (informant) or accused Ganesh Singh and thus,<\/p>\n
he appears to be an independent witness. His evidence is as follows:<\/p>\n
He has got his house adjacent north to the house of the informant. The<\/p>\n
occurrence had taken place about nine months ago. The time was<\/p>\n
between 10-11 AM. At that time, he was working in his field in which<\/p>\n
he had grown cauliflower. The said field is by the side of the house of<\/p>\n
the informant Narnedra Prasad Singh. He heard the cry of a child and<\/p>\n
went running towards the Darwaza of Narendra Prasad Singh where<\/p>\n
he saw appellant Ganesh Singh assaulting the wife of Narenda Prasad<\/p>\n
Singh with Hasua. He ran there and raised hulla, whereupon, several<\/p>\n
persons reached their and then he left the place. He has further\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
deposed that Sub-Inspector had come to the place of occurrence and<\/p>\n
recorded his statement. He has identified appellant Ganesh Singh in<\/p>\n
dock. He has deposed that due to assault wife of Narendra Prasad<\/p>\n
Singh died. Again at para 7, this witness has deposed that his house as<\/p>\n
well as his field (field of cauliflower) are both at the same place. At<\/p>\n
paragraph 8 of his cross-examination, he has deposed that he stayed at<\/p>\n
the place of occurrence for only one minute and when he reached at<\/p>\n
the place of occurrence about 100-150 persons were surrounding the<\/p>\n
wife of Narendra Prasad Singh, who was lying on the ground. PW 2<\/p>\n
has also denied the suggestion that the appellants were falsely<\/p>\n
implicated by Narendra Prasad Singh due to land dispute.<\/p>\n
11.          Admittedly, PW 2 is a neighbour of the informant and<\/p>\n
being not related either to the informant or to the accused he is an<\/p>\n
independent witness. His evidence as well as the evidence of PW 10<\/p>\n
will show that he was the first person who had reached at the place of<\/p>\n
occurrence on hearing hulla. So, his evidence is of much importance.<\/p>\n
His evidence shows that amongst the accused he has named only<\/p>\n
appellant Ganesh Singh and so far the other persons i.e. Dulari Devi<\/p>\n
wife of Ganesh Singh and her two children are concerned, this witness<\/p>\n
has not attributed any overt act to them and even their presence at the<\/p>\n
spot at the time of alleged occurrence has not been admitted by this<\/p>\n
witness. I will discuss this aspect at the appropriate stage.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   – 13 –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.         The next witness on the point of occurrence is PW 3<\/p>\n
Rabindra Singh. He is not an eye witness of the occurrence but is<\/p>\n
definitely an important witness as his evidence shows that<\/p>\n
immediately on hearing hulla at about 11 AM on 14.11.2005 he<\/p>\n
rushed to the place of occurrence and saw appellant Ganesh Singh<\/p>\n
running away towards south with a blood stained Hasua in his hand<\/p>\n
and when he reached at the place of occurrence he saw Sarika Devi<\/p>\n
(deceased) lying on the ground in pool of blood and by that time she<\/p>\n
was already dead. Thus, the evidence of PW 3 also shows that he had<\/p>\n
seen only appellant Ganesh Singh running away with a blood stained<\/p>\n
Hasua after the occurrence and there is nothing in his evidence that<\/p>\n
other accused persons specially appellant Dulari Devi was also seen<\/p>\n
present at the place of occurrence with weapons in their hands.<\/p>\n
13.         PW 4 Bhola Rai is a hearsay witness and his evidence<\/p>\n
also shows that after the occurrence he was told that appellant Ganesh<\/p>\n
Singh had killed the wife of Narendra Prasad Singh.<\/p>\n
14.         PW 5 Rakesh Kumar is also a hearsay witness. He is also<\/p>\n
the witness of preparation of inquest report and seizure list. His<\/p>\n
evidence shows that at the time of occurrence he was at his shop<\/p>\n
where someone told him that appellant Ganesh Singh had killed the<\/p>\n
wife of Narendra Prasad Singh. On getting that information, he came<\/p>\n
to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the wife of<\/p>\n
Narnedra Prasad Singh lying in the pool of blood. He has further\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    – 14 –\n<\/p>\n
deposed that the Sub-Inspector had prepared the inquest report and he<\/p>\n
had put his signature over the same. He has further deposed that the<\/p>\n
Sub-Inspector had also prepared the seizure list of Bhala, broken<\/p>\n
bangles, broken hairs and blood stained earth and he had also put his<\/p>\n
signature over the said seizure list. On his identification, the inquest<\/p>\n
report and the seizure list were marked Ext. 1 and 2 respectively.<\/p>\n
Thus, the evidence of PW 5 discloses that he had heard the name of<\/p>\n
appellant Ganesh Singh, who had killed the informant’s wife. In<\/p>\n
cross-examination, he has deposed that he can not say the name of the<\/p>\n
persons, who had told him that appellant Ganesh Singh had killed the<\/p>\n
wife of the informant which makes his statement inadmissible.<\/p>\n
15.          PW 7 Ranjeet Kumar is also a hearsay witness. His<\/p>\n
evidence is that the occurrence had taken place on 14.11.2005 at about<\/p>\n
11 AM. At that time, he was at his house and on hearing hulla he went<\/p>\n
to the place of occurrence where he saw Sarika Devi lying dead in<\/p>\n
pool of blood and some persons were telling that Ganesh Singh had<\/p>\n
killed her by assaulting her with Hasua. His evidence also shows that<\/p>\n
he did not name any other accused including appellant Dulari Devi,<\/p>\n
who had assaulted the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
16.          PW 8 Alok Kumar is also a hearsay witness. He happens<\/p>\n
to be the nephew of the informant. His evidence is that on 14.11.2005<\/p>\n
his uncle told him on telephone that appellant Ganesh Singh had<\/p>\n
killed his aunt (deceased Sarika Devi). On getting the said\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   – 15 –\n<\/p>\n
information, he came to the house of the informant and saw his aunt<\/p>\n
lying dead in pool of blood. Some persons told him that the appellant<\/p>\n
Ganesh Singh, his wife and his two children had cut his aunt. He has<\/p>\n
further deposed that the Sub-Inspector came there, prepared inquest<\/p>\n
report as well as the seizure list and on those papers he also put his<\/p>\n
signature. The evidence of this witness also shows that he has not<\/p>\n
disclosed the name of the persons, who had told him that his aunt was<\/p>\n
assaulted by appellant Ganesh Singh, his wife and his two sons and<\/p>\n
so, his evidence with regard to the assault on deceased is inadmissible<\/p>\n
in evidence.\n<\/p>\n
17.            PW 11 Rajendra Singh is also a hearsay witness and his<\/p>\n
evidence is similar to the evidence of PW 8 and since he has not<\/p>\n
disclosed the name of persons, who had disclosed to him that the<\/p>\n
appellant Ganesh Singh, his wife and two children had killed the wife<\/p>\n
of Narendra Prasad Singh, his evidence is also inadmissible.<\/p>\n
18.            Similar is the fate of PW 12 Raghunandan Paswan, who<\/p>\n
is also a hearsay witness.\n<\/p>\n
19.            The next witness on the point of occurrence is PW 15<\/p>\n
Nasir but he has been declared hostile by the prosecution as he has<\/p>\n
deposed that he does not know anything about the occurrence and as<\/p>\n
such, his evidence is of no help to the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 – 16 –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.         So far PW 16 Pradeep Kumar Rai is concerned, he is<\/p>\n
simply a formal witness and he has proved the formal FIR which has<\/p>\n
been marked Ext.11.\n<\/p>\n
21.         From the scrutiny of the evidence of the above said<\/p>\n
witnesses, it appears that PW 1, 2, 6 and 10 are the eye witnesses of<\/p>\n
the occurrence but PW 1, 6 and 10 are highly interested witnesses as<\/p>\n
PW 10 is the son of PW 6 (informant) and PW 1 is the brother-in-law<\/p>\n
of PW 6. So, the only independent eye witness is PW 2 Parikshan<\/p>\n
Singh. His evidence shows that he had named only appellant Ganesh<\/p>\n
Singh as the assailant of deceased Sarika Devi and has not named any<\/p>\n
other accused including the appellant Dulari Devi. The other<\/p>\n
witnesses whose evidence has been discussed above are all hearsay<\/p>\n
witnesses and most of the witnesses i.e. PW 3,4,5 and 7 had named<\/p>\n
only appellant Ganesh Singh as assailant of the deceased.<\/p>\n
22.         The evidence of the PW14 Ashok Kumar, who was<\/p>\n
Officer-in-Charge of Mansahi P.S. on the alleged date of occurrence,<\/p>\n
is also very much relevant in this case although some parts of his<\/p>\n
evidence is inadmissible. His evidence is that on 14.11.2005 at about<\/p>\n
11.00 AM appellant Ganesh Singh came to Mansahi P.S. with a<\/p>\n
“Dabiya” in his hand and told him that he had committed murder of a<\/p>\n
woman, namely, Sarika Devi wife of Narendra Prasad Singh of village<\/p>\n
Bari Bathna, P.S. Mansahi, who gave the motive of the occurrence as<\/p>\n
land dispute. He has further deposed that he seized the said “Dabiya”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    – 17 –\n<\/p>\n
in presence of two witnesses, namely, Nand Lal Das and Md. Mokhtar<\/p>\n
as per the seizure list (Ext.2\/a). He also produced the said “Dabiya” in<\/p>\n
court which has been marked as material Ext.1. He has further<\/p>\n
deposed that the information given by the appellant Ganesh Singh had<\/p>\n
been entered in SD entry no.225 dated 14.11.2005 which has been<\/p>\n
marked as Ext. 6. He has further deposed that after making entry in<\/p>\n
the station diary he along with ASI Abhay Kumar Pandey and other<\/p>\n
police personnel proceeded towards the place of occurrence and at the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence he found the dead body of Sarika Devi lying there<\/p>\n
and thereafter ASI Abhay Kumar Pandey prepared the inquest report<\/p>\n
of the dead body (Ext. 1). He has further deposed that one “Bhala”<\/p>\n
and blood stained earth were also seized from the place of occurrence<\/p>\n
as per Ext. 2. He has also produced the said “Bhala” in court which<\/p>\n
has been marked Material Ext. II. He has proved his endorsement on<\/p>\n
the FIR as well as endorsement in the Malkhana register regarding<\/p>\n
entry of “Dabiya” which have been marked as Ext. 7 and 8<\/p>\n
respectively. His evidence shows that he has also identified appellant<\/p>\n
Ganesh Singh in dock.\n<\/p>\n
23.          The evidence of PW 14 is relevant to this extent that the<\/p>\n
appellant immediately after committing the murder had gone to<\/p>\n
Manisahi P.S. and produced the weapon of assault before PW 14. It is<\/p>\n
true that the statement of appellant that he had committed murder of<\/p>\n
Sarika Devi is not admissible in evidence but the conduct of the\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 – 18 –\n<\/p>\n
accused immediately after the occurrence is admissible and the<\/p>\n
production of the weapon by which he had committed the murder of<\/p>\n
Sarika Devi i.e. Material Ext. I is a corroborative piece of evidence<\/p>\n
with regard to the occurrence. The evidence of PW 14 that<\/p>\n
immediately after the disclosure by the appellant and production of<\/p>\n
“Dabiya” he went to the place of occurrence and found Sarika Devi<\/p>\n
lying dead establishes beyond doubt that it was appellant Ganesh<\/p>\n
Singh, who had committed murder of deceased Sarika Devi. The<\/p>\n
evidence of PW 14 finds corroboration from the evidence of PW 13<\/p>\n
Sachida Nand Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of this case,<\/p>\n
who has deposed at paragraph 5 that in connection with this case one<\/p>\n
“Dabiya” was also seized by the SI Ashok Kumar Singh as per the<\/p>\n
seizure list Ext.2\/A. Thus, the evidence of the above said witnesses<\/p>\n
coupled with the evidence of PW 14 that appellant Ganesh Singh had<\/p>\n
produced the weapon of murder of Sarika Devi in Manisahi P.S.<\/p>\n
establishes beyond doubt that the appellant Ganesh Singh had<\/p>\n
committed the murder of Sarika Devi with “Dabiya” (Material Ext. I).<\/p>\n
24.         Let me see whether the manner of occurrence finds<\/p>\n
corroboration from the medical evidence or not? PW 9 is Dr. Om<\/p>\n
Prakash Singh. His evidence is that on 14.11.2005 at about 10.25 PM<\/p>\n
he had conducted post mortem examination of the dead body of<\/p>\n
Sarika Devi and had found following ante mortem injuries on his<\/p>\n
person:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      – 19 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (I)    Rigor mortis was present in both upper and\n                           lower limbs.\n<\/pre>\n
                    (II)   Multiple injuries were present on her body
\n                           as mentioned below:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (i)    Sharp cutting injury was present on the left
\n                           palm. Clotted blood was present and it was
\n                           bone deep. Size 8 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (ii) Sharp cutting injury over the right parietal
\n                           and frontal bone. It was bone deep and
\n                           antero posterior in direction of size 10 cm x
\n                           1-1\/2 cm x bone deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (iii) Sharp cutting injury over the right lateral
\n                           aspect of the neck in the intra auricular
\n                           region. Right mandible was sharply cut and
\n                           it was antero posterior in direction size 11
\n                           cm x 2 cm. x 3 cm. deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (iv) Sharp cutting injury on the back of the neck.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           It was bone deep and transverse in direction.
\n                           Size 10.5 cm. x 2.5 cm. x bone deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (v) Sharp cutting injury over the right scapular
\n                           region. It was bone deep and transverse in
\n                           direction. Size 15 cm. x 4 cm. x bone deep.
\n                           Right scapular bone was sharply cut.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (vi) Sharp cutting injury over the left scapular
\n                           region. It was three in numbers. The size of
\n                           each wound was more or less same and all
\n                           the wounds were bone deep. Size 6 cm. x 2
\n                           cm. x bone deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (vii) Sharp cutting injury over the dorsom of the
\n                           left fore arm. It was bone deep. Size 12 cm.
\n                           x 3 cm. x bone deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (viii) Sharp cutting injury on the lower ventral
\n                           aspect of the right fore arm. Size 7 cm. x 2
\n                           cm. x bone deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (ix) Sharp cutting injury on the upper frontal
\n                           aspect of the chest in the supra mammary
\n                           region. Size 10 cm. x 1-1\/2 cm. x bone deep.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    He has further deposed that death was caused due<\/p>\n
to traumatic shock as a result of severe injury to the vital organs of the<\/p>\n
body caused by sharp cutting weapon. He has also proved his post<\/p>\n
mortem report (Ext.4). He has deposed that the above mentioned\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     – 20 –\n<\/p>\n
injuries were caused either by “Hasua”, “Gandasa” or “Dabiya” but<\/p>\n
not by “Bhala”. Thus, the evidence of PW 9 as well as post mortem<\/p>\n
report also supports this fact that deceased Sarika Devi had died due<\/p>\n
to multiple sharp cut injuries on her entire body including on vital part<\/p>\n
of her body and the evidence on record corroborates that those injuries<\/p>\n
were caused to the deceased by convict Ganesh Singh and not by<\/p>\n
appellant Ram Dulari Devi as PW 9 Dr. Om Prakash Singh has<\/p>\n
completely ruled out the possibility of use of “Bhala” in causing those<\/p>\n
injuries to the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
25.          It is true that PW 1, 6 and 10 have deposed that appellant<\/p>\n
Ram Dulari Devi @ Dulari Devi had also caused injuries to the<\/p>\n
deceased by means of “Bhala” but the other witnesses including PW2,<\/p>\n
who is a close neighbour of the informant, did not support that version<\/p>\n
of the informant. The evidence of PW 9 Dr. Om Prakash Singh at<\/p>\n
paragraph 7 that none of the injuries on the person of the deceased<\/p>\n
could have been caused by Bhala establishes that appellant Ram<\/p>\n
Dulari @ Dulari Devi had no role to play in the alleged occurrence<\/p>\n
and, as such, her involvement in the case appears to be very doubtful.<\/p>\n
26.          As regards the place of occurrence, I find that it is well<\/p>\n
established from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. This also<\/p>\n
finds corroboration from the evidence of PW 13 Sachidanand Singh,<\/p>\n
who is the Investigating Officer of this case and has deposed at<\/p>\n
paragraph 2 that after taking charge of investigation of this case he\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     – 21 –\n<\/p>\n
had visited the place of occurrence of this case which is situated at<\/p>\n
village Bari Bathna within Mansahi Police Station. The place of<\/p>\n
occurrence is the house of the informant facing east. In the front<\/p>\n
portion, there is Vernadah. The house of appellant Ganesh Singh lies<\/p>\n
at a distance of 25 yards from the main gate of the informant. There is<\/p>\n
a cow shed of the appellant near the house of the appellant and from<\/p>\n
there the dead body of Sarika Devi was found at a distance of two feet<\/p>\n
north. He has further deposed that sufficient quantity of blood was<\/p>\n
found at that place. He has given the boundary of the place of<\/p>\n
occurrence where the dead body of deceased Sarika Devi was found<\/p>\n
which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             In the north: House of the informant,<\/p>\n
             In the west: Main road in between the house of the<\/p>\n
             appellant and the informant,<\/p>\n
             In the south: House of the appellant,<\/p>\n
             In the east: Mango tree and cow shed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Thus, the evidence of PW 13 also establishes that the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence is in between the house of the informant and the<\/p>\n
appellants and there is no ambiguity on this point and, therefore, I find<\/p>\n
that the prosecution has also established the place of occurrence of<\/p>\n
this case.\n<\/p>\n
27.          It has been argued by the learned defence counsel that<\/p>\n
initially before the police the prosecution witnesses had stated that due\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        – 22 –\n<\/p>\n
to land dispute the occurrence had taken place but in court the<\/p>\n
informant as well as the prosecution witnesses have categorically<\/p>\n
deposed that there was no land dispute between the informant and the<\/p>\n
appellants. Learned advocate submitted that it goes to show that the<\/p>\n
prosecution has suppressed the motive of the occurrence. He further<\/p>\n
submitted that the defence has examined one witness, namely,<\/p>\n
Janardhan Singh (DW1), who has categorically deposed that there was<\/p>\n
land dispute between both the parties and the appellant Ganesh Singh<\/p>\n
was falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. It is true that<\/p>\n
after denial of the informant and his witnesses about the existence of<\/p>\n
land dispute between the parties there remains nothing on record as<\/p>\n
what was the motive of occurrence but there can not be two opinions<\/p>\n
that some time the occurrence takes place without any motive and in<\/p>\n
view of the overwhelming evidence on record that the appellant<\/p>\n
Ganesh Singh had committed murder of deceased Sarika Devi, it can<\/p>\n
not be held that due to land dispute (which was suppressed by the<\/p>\n
prosecution) the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.<\/p>\n
28.          On the basis of the discussions made above and the<\/p>\n
materials available on record, I find and hold that prosecution has<\/p>\n
fully succeeded in proving the charge against the appellant Ganesh<\/p>\n
Singh that on 14th November, 2005, at about 11 AM at village Bari<\/p>\n
Bathan, P.S. Mansahi, District: Katihar, he had committed murder of<\/p>\n
Sarika Devi wife of Narendra Prasad Singh by causing multiple sharp\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       – 23 –\n<\/p>\n
cut injury on her person with Hasua (Dabiya) which was sufficient in<\/p>\n
ordinary course of nature to cause her death. I am further of the view<\/p>\n
that so far appellant Ram Dulari Devi @ Dulari Devi is concerned, the<\/p>\n
prosecution has not been able to substantiate the charge of causing<\/p>\n
murder of Sarika Devi in prosecution of common intention with<\/p>\n
Ganesh Singh, and as such, appellant Ram Dulari Devi @ Dulari Devi<\/p>\n
deserves to get benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
29.          Accordingly, the conviction of appellant Ganesh Singh<\/p>\n
for the charge of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code is upheld but the conviction of appellant Ram Dulari Devi<\/p>\n
@ Dulari Devi under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the<\/p>\n
sentence of imprisonment for life passed against her are set aside.<\/p>\n
30.          It has been argued by the learned defence counsel on<\/p>\n
behalf of convict Ganesh Singh that although convict Ganesh Singh<\/p>\n
has been awarded death sentence but the law is settled in this regard<\/p>\n
that only in extreme cases and in exceptionally grave circumstances of<\/p>\n
particular case relating to the crime as well the criminal and in rarest<\/p>\n
of rare cases death sentence can be awarded. In this regard, he has<\/p>\n
relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachan<\/p>\n
Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1980 SC 898. Relying upon<\/p>\n
the said decision, learned defence counsel submitted that barring this<\/p>\n
case there is no criminal antecedent of convict Ganesh Singh and<\/p>\n
before this incident he was a law abiding citizen. He submitted that\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   – 24 –\n<\/p>\n
the informant and the witnesses are silent as to what prompted the<\/p>\n
convict to commit the offence. In other words, the motive has not<\/p>\n
been proved, rather, it has been suppressed by the prosecution. He<\/p>\n
submitted that this circumstance shows that some immediate<\/p>\n
provocation of serious nature was the cause of committing the offence<\/p>\n
and so, he argued that this case does not fall within the purview of<\/p>\n
rarest of rare cases.\n<\/p>\n
31.           I am of the opinion that the argument of the learned<\/p>\n
defence counsel has got much force as there is nothing on record that<\/p>\n
convict Ganesh Singh had any criminal record. The denial of the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses about the existence of any land dispute between<\/p>\n
the informant and convict Ganesh Singh shows that he had no motive<\/p>\n
from before to commit the offence of murder and this circumstance<\/p>\n
goes to prove that there might be some sudden provocation of serious<\/p>\n
nature which had prompted him to commit the ghastly offence like<\/p>\n
murder. The fact that after committing the offence he (Ganesh Singh)<\/p>\n
immediately went to the concerned police station with weapon of<\/p>\n
assault in his hand and confessed his guilt before the police (although<\/p>\n
not admissible in evidence) shows that the convict is not a hardened<\/p>\n
criminal. All these facts and circumstances establish that this case<\/p>\n
does not fall under the purview of rarest of rare cases and so,<\/p>\n
awarding death sentence to the convict Ganesh Singh appears to be<\/p>\n
excessive. I am of the view that the purpose will be served by\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     – 25 –\n<\/p>\n
awarding life imprisonment to convict Ganesh Singh. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
the death sentence awarded to the convict Ganesh Singh under section<\/p>\n
302 of the Indian Penal Code is converted into life imprisonment and<\/p>\n
relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Swamy<\/p>\n
Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra Versus State of Karnataka<\/p>\n
reported in JT 2008(8) SC 27, I direct that the convict Ganesh Singh<\/p>\n
shall not be released till he completes twenty years of actual<\/p>\n
imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
32.          In the result, Cr. Appeal No.1188 of 2007 filed on behalf<\/p>\n
of Ram Dulari Devi @ Dulari Devi is allowed and she is acquitted of<\/p>\n
the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code after giving her<\/p>\n
benefit of doubt. She is on bail and, as such, she is ordered to be<\/p>\n
discharged from the liabilities of her bail bond. Cr. Appeal No. 1187<\/p>\n
of 2007 filed on behalf of the appellant Ganesh Singh is hereby<\/p>\n
dismissed with modification in the sentence and Death Reference<\/p>\n
No.9 of 2007 is answered in negative.\n<\/p>\n
                                        (Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.)<\/p>\n
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.: I agree.\n<\/p>\n
                                           (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)<\/p>\n
Patna High Court,
\nPatna.\n<\/p>\n
Dated the 29th September, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
NAFR\/ JA\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court State Of Bihar vs Ganesh Singh on 29 September, 2008 Author: Shiva Kirti Singh Death Reference No. 9 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1187 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1188 of 2007 *** Reference made by Sri Abhay Kumar, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track court No.1,Katihar, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183526","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Bihar vs Ganesh Singh on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Bihar vs Ganesh Singh on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-16T17:12:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Bihar vs Ganesh Singh on 29 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-16T17:12:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":6141,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008\",\"name\":\"State Of Bihar vs Ganesh Singh on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-16T17:12:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Bihar vs Ganesh Singh on 29 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Bihar vs Ganesh Singh on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Bihar vs Ganesh Singh on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-16T17:12:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Bihar vs Ganesh Singh on 29 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-16T17:12:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008"},"wordCount":6141,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008","name":"State Of Bihar vs Ganesh Singh on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-16T17:12:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-bihar-vs-ganesh-singh-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Bihar vs Ganesh Singh on 29 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183526","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=183526"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183526\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183526"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183526"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183526"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}