{"id":241695,"date":"2008-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008"},"modified":"2014-01-21T05:11:00","modified_gmt":"2014-01-20T23:41:00","slug":"jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Jang Bahadur Singh vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Jang Bahadur Singh vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Smt. Mridula Mishra<\/div>\n
                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.21 OF 2003 (DB)\n\n                                                 ***\n<\/pre>\n
            Against the judgment dated 27th August, 2002 and order dated
\n            29th August, 2002 passed by Sri Dharnidhar Jha, Sessions
\n            Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No.403 of 2001.<\/p>\n
                                                 ***<\/p>\n
            JANG BAHADUR SINGH, SON OF LATE RADHA KISHUN SINGH,
\n            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PATRAWAL, P.S. BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT
\n            ROHTAS——————————————–APPELLANT
\n                                          Versus
\n            THE STATE OF BIHAR——————————-RESPONDENT<\/p>\n
                                                 ***<\/p>\n
            For the Appellant: Mrs.Bela Singh, Advocate
\n                                        (Amicus Curiae)<\/p>\n
            For the State          : Mr.Lala Kailash Bihar Prasad,Sr.Advocate
\n                                                    (Addl. P.P.)
\n                                               ***<\/p>\n
                                              P R E S E N T<\/p>\n
                      THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA<\/p>\n
                      THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SYED MD.MAHFOOZ ALAM<\/p>\n
                                                 ***<\/p>\n
Mridula Mishra &
\nS.M.M.Alam, JJ.     Sole appellant Jang Bahadur Singh has preferred this<\/p>\n
            appeal from the jail. At the time of admission of this<\/p>\n
            appeal,       Mrs.   Bela   Singh,   Advocate    was    appointed    Amicus<\/p>\n
            Curiae to represent the appellant. She has appeared for the<\/p>\n
            appellant at the time of hearing also.\n<\/p>\n
            2.      The    appellant     by    the     judgment    and   order   dated<\/p>\n
            27.8.2002 and 29.8.2002, respectively, has been convicted<\/p>\n
            under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions<\/p>\n
            Trial No.403\/01 by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram.<\/p>\n
            He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for<\/p>\n
            life.\n<\/p>\n
                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
3.     Bikramganj P.S. Case No.79 of 2001 was registered on<\/p>\n
12.6.2001 at 5.00 P.M. on the basis of the fardbeyan of<\/p>\n
informant Nirmal Singh recorded at 2.30 P.M. at village<\/p>\n
Patrawal, P.S. Bikramganj, District Rohtas. The informant<\/p>\n
in his fardbeyan has stated that Jang Bahadur Singh is his<\/p>\n
youngest brother, informant is the eldest one and second<\/p>\n
brother   Birbal    Singh     resides   with     his   family     at   Assam.<\/p>\n
Three brothers were separate in mess and business for 7-8<\/p>\n
years but still they reside in the same house. About one<\/p>\n
year prior to the occurrence, Jang Bahadur had killed his<\/p>\n
brother-in-law by throttling his neck but in this regard no<\/p>\n
police case was instituted by his in-laws as they thought<\/p>\n
that they have already lost the son and if police case is<\/p>\n
also   instituted,    life     of   their      daughter    will    also      be<\/p>\n
ruined.   Jang     Bahadur    subsequent       to   the   murder       of   his<\/p>\n
brother-in-law      started     residing    at      his   native       village<\/p>\n
Patrawal as earlier he used to reside at his in-laws place.<\/p>\n
Bibha Devi, wife of Jang Bahadur was not maintaining good<\/p>\n
relationship with her husband since the murder of her only<\/p>\n
brother. Jang Bahadur had two sons and one daughter. The<\/p>\n
informant came to know about the murder of Jang Bahadur’s<\/p>\n
brother-in-law when Bibha Devi came along with her children<\/p>\n
from her parents village to village Patrawal and started<\/p>\n
residing there. On 12.6.2001 at 12.00 noon the informant<\/p>\n
was taking his bath when children and female members of the<\/p>\n
family came shouting that Jang Bahadur has locked his wife<\/p>\n
inside the room and assaulting her. The informant and his<\/p>\n
co-sharers Birendra Singh, Mithilesh Singh , Shankar Singh,<\/p>\n
Anil Singh and others ran towards the courtyard and saw<\/p>\n
that the room of Jang Bahadur was locked from inside. They<\/p>\n
started shouting and asking Jang Bahadur to open the door
\n                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
but there was no response from inside. The informant became<\/p>\n
suspicious that his brother might have killed his wife, as<\/p>\n
such he locked the room from outside and gave a telephonic<\/p>\n
message to Bikramganj Police Station about the incident.<\/p>\n
The Officer Incharge along with police force came at the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence. Outside lock was removed in presence<\/p>\n
of the police and again request was made to Jang Bahadur<\/p>\n
for opening the door. Jang Bahadur finally opened the door<\/p>\n
and    came    out    of     the   room   with   blood-stained     Dao.    The<\/p>\n
informant thereafter entered into the room and saw that<\/p>\n
Jang Bahadur had killed his wife Bibha Devi with Dao. Bibha<\/p>\n
Devi    was    lying    dead       with   several   cut    injuries   on   his<\/p>\n
person. Jang Bahadur was arrested by the Officer Incharge<\/p>\n
of the Police Station at the place of occurrence itself.<\/p>\n
Blood-stained Dao was seized by the Officer Incharge and<\/p>\n
fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at the place of<\/p>\n
occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
4.     On     the    basis    of    the   fardbeyan   of    the   informant,<\/p>\n
Bikramganj P.S. Case No.79\/01 was                registered under Section<\/p>\n
302 of the I.P.C. The Officer Incharge prepared inquest<\/p>\n
report, started investigation of the case. The dead body<\/p>\n
was sent for post mortem. Seizure of the blood-stained Dao<\/p>\n
was made. In course of investigation statements of family<\/p>\n
members and neighbours were recorded by the Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer and on completion of investigation charge sheet was<\/p>\n
submitted against the accused. On submission of the charge<\/p>\n
sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to<\/p>\n
the Court of Session for trial.\n<\/p>\n
5.     The prosecution in order to prove the charges framed<\/p>\n
against     the     accused    examined       altogether   nine   witnesses.<\/p>\n
P.W.1 Mithilesh Singh, P.W.2 Birendra Kumar, P.W.4 Girija
\n                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
Devi and P.W.5 Usha Devi were declared hostile and cross-<\/p>\n
examined by the prosecution. All these hostile witnesses<\/p>\n
partly supported the case of the prosecution but denied<\/p>\n
that their statements were recorded by the Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer     under     Section      161       of     the    Code      of    Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure.     However,       from   the          evidence      of   the    Officer<\/p>\n
Incharge    (P.W.9)    it   transpires            that    all   these      witnesses<\/p>\n
were examined during investigation and had supported the<\/p>\n
case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
6.     P.W.1 Mithilesh Singh is the neighbour of the accused.<\/p>\n
He has stated that he came to know about the incident as<\/p>\n
his house is adjacent to the house of the accused and the<\/p>\n
informant. He also went to the place of occurrence when the<\/p>\n
police personnel came and saw the accused being arrested by<\/p>\n
the police. He has denied that his statement was recorded<\/p>\n
by    the   police,    as   such     he      was     cross-examined          by   the<\/p>\n
prosecution. P.W.1 when cross-examined by the prosecution<\/p>\n
has   denied   that    Jang     Babadur       was    mentally        disturbed    or<\/p>\n
insane at the time of occurrence. He has simply stated that<\/p>\n
the villagers were apprehensive of Jang Bahadur’s behaviour<\/p>\n
as he used to indulge in altercation with anyone for no<\/p>\n
reason.\n<\/p>\n
7.     P.W.2 Birendra Kuamr has stated that at 12 noon he<\/p>\n
came to know that Jang Bahadur was assaulting his wife<\/p>\n
locking the room from inside and finally killed her. The<\/p>\n
police came at the place of occurrence and arrested Jang<\/p>\n
Bahadur in his presence. P.W.2 has further stated that he<\/p>\n
saw the dead body of Bibha Devi at the place of occurrence.<\/p>\n
This witness has also stated in his cross-examination that<\/p>\n
villagers used to call the accused as “Pagala” and they<\/p>\n
were apprehensive of his erratic and rude behaviour.
\n                                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
8.      P.W.3 Nirmal is Singh the informant and own brother of<\/p>\n
the accused. He has supported the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
as narrated in the first information report. He has stated<\/p>\n
that in his presence, blood-stained Dao was seized by the<\/p>\n
police and he put his signature on the seizure list. He has<\/p>\n
also stated that his second brother resides with his family<\/p>\n
at Assam. Jang Bahadur his youngest brother was earlier<\/p>\n
residing        at    his    in-laws         house         but     after    he    killed    his<\/p>\n
brother-in-law          he    came       back         to     his      native     village    and<\/p>\n
started      residing        there.       P.W.3        has       denied     the   suggestion<\/p>\n
that at any point of time Jang Bahadur had suffered with<\/p>\n
insanity.        In    paragraph         8     of      his       deposition,      P.W.3     has<\/p>\n
stated that no one has ever noticed any abnormal behaviour<\/p>\n
of    Jang      Bahadur      which       can      be       of    an    insane     person.    In<\/p>\n
paragraph 11 of his deposition, P.W.3 has stated that Jang<\/p>\n
Bahadur was not doing anything for earning his livelihood<\/p>\n
and his wife was maintaining him and his children from the<\/p>\n
money she used to bring from her parent’s place. This part<\/p>\n
of the deposition of P.W.3 indicates that money might have<\/p>\n
been one of the reasons for killing Bibha Devi as Jang<\/p>\n
Bahadur         had   no     source          of       income       for     fulfilling       his<\/p>\n
requirements.\n<\/p>\n
9.      P.W.4 Girija Devi is the aunt of the accused. She has<\/p>\n
tried      to    make       out    a    defence            for     the     accused   in     her<\/p>\n
deposition. She has tried to bring the act of accused in<\/p>\n
the category of an act done due to insanity. P.W.4 was<\/p>\n
declared hostile but she has supported the part of the<\/p>\n
prosecution case that the police arrested Jang Bahadur as<\/p>\n
he killed his wife. P.W.4 has also stated that Jang Bahadur<\/p>\n
was assaulting his wife and Usha Devi tried to restrain him<\/p>\n
but   he     continued        to       assault        Bibha        Devi    till    she   died.
\n                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
P.W.4 has stated that on account of erratic behaviour the<\/p>\n
villagers used to call Jang Bahadur “Pagala”.<\/p>\n
10.     P.W.5 Usha Devi is the sister-in-law of the accused<\/p>\n
and wife of the informant Nirmal Singh (P.W.3). She was<\/p>\n
also declared hostile as she denied that her statement was<\/p>\n
recorded by the police during investigation. She was cross-<\/p>\n
examined by the prosecution. P.W.5 has also tried to make a<\/p>\n
case of insanity for the accused. In paragraph 5 of her<\/p>\n
cross-examination, P.W.5 has stated that for the last five<\/p>\n
years Jang Bahadur had developed insanity and his mental<\/p>\n
condition was not normal.\n<\/p>\n
11.     P.W.6 Anil Singh has fully supported the case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution. He has stated that he is related as brother to<\/p>\n
the accused. P.W.6 has stated that when the police came at<\/p>\n
the place of occurrence he also went there and saw that<\/p>\n
Bihha Devi has been killed by Jang Bahadur inside the room.<\/p>\n
He saw the dead body of Bibha Devi lying dead with several<\/p>\n
injuries. He also witnessed Jang Bahadur coming out with<\/p>\n
blood-stained        Dao     in    his     hand       which   he    had    used    for<\/p>\n
assaulting his wife and killed her.\n<\/p>\n
12.     P.W.7 Shankar Singh is the villager and co-sharer of<\/p>\n
the   accused.       He    has     fully       supported      the   case     of    the<\/p>\n
prosecution. He has stated that information regarding the<\/p>\n
incident       was   given    to    the    police       by    P.W.3.      Even   after<\/p>\n
arrival of the police Jang Bahadur was not opening the<\/p>\n
door.     He    remained      sitting          with    blood-stained        Dao.    In<\/p>\n
paragraph 9 of his evidence, P.W.7 has specifically stated<\/p>\n
that as per his knowledge, the accused has never suffered<\/p>\n
with any attack of insanity.\n<\/p>\n
13.     Dr.Ashok Kumar Singh, P.W.8 had conducted post mortem<\/p>\n
examination on the dead body of deceased Bibha Devi on
\n                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
13.6.2001.      P.W.8   had   found       the     following       ante   mortem<\/p>\n
injuries on the person of the deceased:-\n<\/p>\n
        (i)       Incised wound 5″ x 3″ x trachea cut deep<\/p>\n
                  over front of neck.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (i)       Incised wound 5″ x 1 \u00bd” x mandible cut deep<\/p>\n
                  below right ear.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (ii)      Incised wound 5″ x 1″ x muscle deep just<\/p>\n
                  below injury no. (ii).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (iii)     Incised wound 4″ x 2″ x vertebra cut deep<\/p>\n
                  over nap of neck.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n        (iv)      Incised wound 2\" x 1\", skin and subcutaneous\n\n                  tissues       deep         over      right         shoulder,\n\n                  posteriorily,\n\n        (v)       Incised wound cutting almost whole of left\n\n<\/pre>\n
                  wrist including bones, except some portion<\/p>\n
                  of     skin         and         subcutaneous           tissues<\/p>\n
                  posteriorily.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (vi)      Incised      would        1″    x    \u00bd”     x     skin     and<\/p>\n
                  subcutaneous tissues deep over right wrist.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Injury nos. 1, 2 and 4, in the opinion of the doctor, were<\/p>\n
dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature. All the<\/p>\n
injuries were found to be caused by sharp cutting weapon<\/p>\n
like Katta or Dao.\n<\/p>\n
14.   P.W.9 Brajnandan Prasad was posted as Officer Incharge<\/p>\n
of Bikramganj Police Station on the date of occurrence. He<\/p>\n
has   deposed    that   on    12.6.2001      at     1.30    P.M.    he    got   a<\/p>\n
telephonic message that at village Patrawal, one person has<\/p>\n
killed his wife. He made station diary entry no.270 and<\/p>\n
proceeded with the police party for village Patrawal. He<\/p>\n
reached the village Patrawal at 2.30 P.M. and came at the<\/p>\n
house of Nirmal Singh.           He recorded fardbeyan of Nirmal
\n                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
Singh. At that time Shiv Kumar Ram and Bablu Singh alias<\/p>\n
Rakesh    Ranjan     were      present.   He   also    recorded    the    re-<\/p>\n
statement of the informant, forced the accused to open the<\/p>\n
door and on opening of the door, prepared inquest report.<\/p>\n
He sent the dead body for post mortem examination of the<\/p>\n
dead body. He found several injuries on the person of the<\/p>\n
deceased. The blood was found fallen on the cot on the<\/p>\n
floor. He also found the blood-stained Dao and prepared<\/p>\n
seizure list. Statements of Mithilesh Singh P.W.1, Birendra<\/p>\n
Kumar P.W.2, Girija Devi P.W.4 and Usha Devi P.W.5 were<\/p>\n
recorded by him and all of them have narrated before him<\/p>\n
that Jang Babadur had locked himself with his wife inside<\/p>\n
the room where he repeatedly assaulted his wife and killed<\/p>\n
her. P.W.5 had disclosed that Bibha Devi was shouting for<\/p>\n
help but she could not be saved as the room was locked.<\/p>\n
P.W.9 has stated that P.W.5 Usha Devi had stated before him<\/p>\n
that     she   informed        her   husband    P.W.3     and     thereafter<\/p>\n
telephonic message was given at the police station. P.W.9<\/p>\n
arrested the accused after the room was opened.                    P.W.9 in<\/p>\n
paragraph      25   of   his    deposition     has    stated    that   during<\/p>\n
investigation he did not find any reason for sending the<\/p>\n
accused for his mental treatment or consulting Psychiatrist<\/p>\n
as there was no symptom of insanity. P.W.9 has stated that<\/p>\n
he did not find that the accused had any remorse for his<\/p>\n
brutal act. Further he has deposed that he also recorded<\/p>\n
the statement of the accused after his arrest and produced<\/p>\n
him before the court.\n<\/p>\n
15.      The evidence on record is sufficient to indicate that<\/p>\n
Jang Bahadur killed his wife Bibha Devi by assaulting her<\/p>\n
with Dao. The evidence of the witnesses does not show that<\/p>\n
there was any provocation from the side of the deceased.
\n                                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
The accused has not also come out with any specific defence<\/p>\n
that he has falsely been implicated or there was any enmity<\/p>\n
with the informant or witnesses due to which a story has<\/p>\n
been concocted by them. Only question which has been posed<\/p>\n
for consideration is – insanity of the accused, at the time<\/p>\n
of commission of the offence, so as to get the benefit of<\/p>\n
Section 84 of the I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
16.    Mrs. Bela Singh arguing on behalf of the appellant<\/p>\n
has   tried    to     bring      the    act       of     the    accused      within       the<\/p>\n
purview of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 84<\/p>\n
of the I.P.C. says that nothing is an offence which is done<\/p>\n
by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of<\/p>\n
unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of<\/p>\n
the   act,    or    that    he    is    doing          what    is    either       wrong    or<\/p>\n
contrary to law. Counsel for the appellant has submitted<\/p>\n
that it is well settled that when a person is accused of<\/p>\n
any   offence,       the    burden          of     proving       the    existence          of<\/p>\n
circumstance        bringing      the       accused       within      any    of    General<\/p>\n
Exception in the Indian Penal Code is upon the accused. In<\/p>\n
criminal      cases     burden         of        proof     is       always    upon        the<\/p>\n
prosecution. When sufficient proof of the commission of a<\/p>\n
crime has been produced by the prosecution connecting the<\/p>\n
accused      with     the     crime         in     that        case    the        onus    of<\/p>\n
establishing innocence shifts to the accused when he pleads<\/p>\n
existence of any circumstances to get benefit of Section 84<\/p>\n
of I.P.C. For bringing any act of accused under the purview<\/p>\n
of Section 84 of the I.P.C., the accused has to prove the<\/p>\n
existence     of    circumstance            within       any    special      or    general<\/p>\n
exception. Section 105 of the Evidence Act provides that<\/p>\n
onus for proving the existence of circumstance is upon the
\n                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
accused and in case this onus is not discharged, the court<\/p>\n
shall presume the absence of circumstance.<\/p>\n
17.     Counsel for the appellant has admitted that in fact,<\/p>\n
plea    of   insanity    in    order        to    prove   the    existence    of<\/p>\n
circumstance and to bring the act of the accused within any<\/p>\n
of the general exception of the Indian Penal Code was not<\/p>\n
taken at the earliest stage of the proceeding. In order to<\/p>\n
explain this laches on the part of the accused, it has been<\/p>\n
submitted that from the evidence on record, it is evident<\/p>\n
that behaviour of the accused was abnormal as he was called<\/p>\n
as “Pagala” by the villagers. P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 all<\/p>\n
have    accepted   that       villagers          were   apprehensive     of   his<\/p>\n
behaviour. P.W.5 has specifically stated that for the last<\/p>\n
five years behaviour of Jang Bahadur was not normal. In<\/p>\n
spite of sufficient knowledge the prosecution witnesses who<\/p>\n
are family members did not take any step for defending the<\/p>\n
accused when on account of insanity he had brutally killed<\/p>\n
his wife for no reason. P.W.3 has admitted in his evidence<\/p>\n
that he never tried to meet his brother after his arrest by<\/p>\n
the    police.   All    the    family       members,      in    fact,   detached<\/p>\n
themselves from the accused on account of his brutal act,<\/p>\n
as such the court had to engage a lawyer for defending him.<\/p>\n
This fact has sufficiently been indicated in the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment and order sheet of the trial court. There was no<\/p>\n
one to defend the case of Jang Bahadur Singh, as such an<\/p>\n
Advocate was appointed by the court. The advocate appointed<\/p>\n
by court also did not make any effort either to meet the<\/p>\n
accused or for a dialogue with him. Due to these reasons,<\/p>\n
defence of insanity could not be taken on his behalf at the<\/p>\n
earliest stage of the proceeding. These are circumstances<\/p>\n
which explain the laches on the part of the accused for not
\n                                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
proving the existence of circumstance of insanity though he<\/p>\n
was   actually    suffering      from       insanity      at   the   time    of<\/p>\n
occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
18.   Mrs. Bela Singh, counsel for the appellant, has placed<\/p>\n
reliance on a decision reported in JT 2001 (10) SC 203<\/p>\n
(Durga Domar Vrs. State of M.P.).In that decision also the<\/p>\n
accused had not taken any plea of insanity before the trial<\/p>\n
court. High Court also did not consider the case of accused<\/p>\n
to give him benefit of Section 84 of the I.P.C. for his<\/p>\n
brutal act of killing five innocent children. The accused<\/p>\n
was awarded death sentence by the trial court and confirmed<\/p>\n
by the High Court. Finally the Apex court for the first<\/p>\n
time considered the evidence on record and came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that narration of the occurrence itself gives<\/p>\n
impression    that     the   accused    had      some   mental   derailment.<\/p>\n
This was considered specially for the reason that there was<\/p>\n
no motive attributed to the accused for such a ghastly<\/p>\n
massacre of innocent children. The Apex Court called for a<\/p>\n
report   from    the   Psychiatrist         of   Mansik   Aroghashala.      The<\/p>\n
report disclosed that accused suffers from Schizophrenia.<\/p>\n
Considering the report, death sentence was altered to life<\/p>\n
imprisonment maintaining the conviction.                   Counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant submits that the fact of the reported decision is<\/p>\n
fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In this<\/p>\n
case also there is no motive attributed to the accused for<\/p>\n
his brutal act of killing his wife. The evidence is also<\/p>\n
there to show that the village people did not treat him as<\/p>\n
normal person. In the present case, in spite of all these<\/p>\n
facts, the prosecution did not take any step for calling<\/p>\n
for any medical report. Counsel for the appellant submitted<\/p>\n
that in fact there should be re-trial of the accused, a
\n                                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
report be called for from the specialist\/psychiatrist and<\/p>\n
only on consideration of the evidence and report on record,<\/p>\n
judgment and order be passed by the trial court.<\/p>\n
19.     Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, counsel for the State,<\/p>\n
submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that<\/p>\n
the appellant suffered with any mental disorder at the time<\/p>\n
of occurrence. Even the order sheet of the trial court and<\/p>\n
the judgment of the trial court do not indicate that the<\/p>\n
accused was suffering from any kind of insanity for which<\/p>\n
act   done      by    him   can    be        categorized           within       general       or<\/p>\n
special exception in order to bring the case within the<\/p>\n
purview of Section 84 of the I.P.C. In order to examine the<\/p>\n
submissions          advanced     by    counsel         for        the    State       and   the<\/p>\n
appellant, we also looked into the order sheet of the trial<\/p>\n
court. On perusal of the order sheet of the trial court, it<\/p>\n
is apparent that the accused always answered properly the<\/p>\n
questions put by the trial court. After arrest when he was<\/p>\n
presented before the Magistrate for the first time no sign<\/p>\n
of    abnormality        was    noticed           by    the    court.          He     properly<\/p>\n
answered the questions put to him. The Magistrate asked him<\/p>\n
how he received his injury on his person and he replied<\/p>\n
that the villagers and family members assaulted him. The<\/p>\n
court    had     appointed        an    Advocate             for    him    and        he    duly<\/p>\n
accepted     it.      During      the    trial         he     filed       an    application<\/p>\n
before    the    court      for    changing            his    lawyer.          Such    an   act<\/p>\n
cannot be expected from an insane person. His behaviour was<\/p>\n
completely      normal      when       his    statement            was    being       recorded<\/p>\n
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He properly understood the<\/p>\n
circumstance put before him and replied the question. Not a<\/p>\n
single chit of paper was brought before the trial court to<\/p>\n
show that at any point of time he suffered with insanity as
\n                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
there was no report from the jail informing his abnormal<\/p>\n
behaviour. P.W.1 and P.W.3 have stated in specific terms<\/p>\n
that the accused never suffered with any kind of insanity<\/p>\n
in past. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses simply<\/p>\n
shows that the accused is a very arrogant and ill-behaved<\/p>\n
person having lust for money. He killed his brother-in-law<\/p>\n
for property. Considering all these facts, we find that the<\/p>\n
decision relied by the counsel for the appellant is not<\/p>\n
applicable to the facts of the present case.<\/p>\n
20.   I would also like to refer paragraph 25 of the trial<\/p>\n
court’s judgment which is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                      “I find from the perusal of order dated
\n                      30-5-2002   that   he  was   very  much
\n                      conscious about his defence and wanted
\n                      his advocate changed but that prayer
\n                      was rejected by me on account of the
\n                      industry and labour invested by Shri
\n                      Kashyap in defending the accused. I
\n                      find from the perusal of the evidence
\n                      referred to me that there is nothing on
\n                      the record to indicate that the accused
\n                      indeed was mad or could have been mad
\n                      from before rather he appears to me a
\n                      very conscious and composed persons
\n                      attending to his trial regularly and
\n                      taking interest in it. I had the
\n                      occasion of talking to him on a couple
\n                      of occasions also and found no trait in
\n                      him   which   could   characterize  him
\n                      insane. In that light I find that
\n                      submission of the defence not appearing
\n                      to be acceptable.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
21.   Since there is nothing on record to bring the act of<\/p>\n
the accused under the purview of Section 84 of the I.P.C.,<\/p>\n
as such the appellant is guilty of committing an offence of<\/p>\n
culpable   homicide   amounting        to   murder   punishable   under<\/p>\n
Section 302 of the I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
22.   Considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses<\/p>\n
present on record, we have no other option than to affirm<\/p>\n
the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused-
\n                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and<\/p>\n
awarding rigorous imprisonment for life. This appeal is,<\/p>\n
accordingly, dismissed. Mrs. Bela Singh, Amicus Curiae, has<\/p>\n
taken keen interest and made sincere effort to defend the<\/p>\n
appellant. She should be paid her fee by the Patna High<\/p>\n
Court Legal Aid Committee amounting to Rs.2500\/- (Twenty<\/p>\n
five   hundred).   The   first   order   appointing   to   Mrs.   Bela<\/p>\n
Singh, Advocate as Amicus Curiae and the last page of the<\/p>\n
order be handed over to her.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          (Mridula Mishra, J.)<\/p>\n
                                       (Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.)<\/p>\n
Patna High Court, Patna
\nThe 4th December, 2008
\nN.A.F.R. (B.T.)\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Jang Bahadur Singh vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 2008 Author: Smt. Mridula Mishra CRIMINAL APPEAL No.21 OF 2003 (DB) *** Against the judgment dated 27th August, 2002 and order dated 29th August, 2002 passed by Sri Dharnidhar Jha, Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No.403 of 2001. *** […]<\/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-241695","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJang Bahadur Singh vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 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\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jang Bahadur Singh vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-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=\"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-20T23:41:00+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jang Bahadur Singh vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-20T23:41:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3867,\"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\\\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Jang Bahadur Singh vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-20T23:41:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jang Bahadur Singh vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Jang Bahadur Singh vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 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\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jang Bahadur Singh vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-20T23:41:00+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jang Bahadur Singh vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-20T23:41:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008"},"wordCount":3867,"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\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008","name":"Jang Bahadur Singh vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-20T23:41:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jang-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-4-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jang Bahadur Singh vs State Of Bihar on 4 December, 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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/241695","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=241695"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241695\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241695"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241695"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241695"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}