{"id":39691,"date":"2010-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010"},"modified":"2015-06-24T21:13:58","modified_gmt":"2015-06-24T15:43:58","slug":"praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Dharnidhar Jha<\/div>\n
                                GOVT. APPEAL (DB) No.5 of 2003\n                                             With\n                                  Cr.Appeal(SJ)No.199 of 2003\n\n                         Against the judgement of conviction and order\n                         of sentence dated 4.4.2003 passed by Sessions\n                         Judge, Ist Fast Track Court,Ara in Sessions\n                         Trial No.411 of 1992.\n\n                               GOVT.APPEAL(DB)NO.5 of 2003\n                   THE STATE OF BIHAR---------------------------Appellant.\n                                             Versus\n                   1.PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH,\n                   2.SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH,\n                   3.BINAY KR.SINGH &\n                   4.BIJAY KR.SINGH-----------------------------Respondents.\n\n                                 CR. APPEAL (SJ) No.199 of 2003\n                   PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH--------------------------Appellant\n                                             Versus\n                   STATE OF BIHAR-------------------------------Respondent\n                                              ----\n                   For the appellants:-1.Sri Krishna Prasad Singh Sr.Advocate\n                                       2.Sri Manindra Kishore Singh, Advocate\n                                       3.Mrs. Meena Singh, Advocate\n                   For the State:-     Miss Shashi Bala Verma, A.P.P.\n                   For the Informant:- 1.Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur,Advocate\n                                       2.Sri Harendra Pratap Singh,Advocate\n                                       3. Sri Satyapal Singh,Advocate\n\n                                            P R E S E N T\n\n                         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA\n                      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA\n\n\nDharnidhar Jha &              The Govt. Appeal along with the appeal preferred\nBirendra Prasad\n   Verma,JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                    by     appellant   Praveen   Kumar   Singh   arise   out   of   the<\/p>\n
                    judgement dated 4.4.2003 passed by Fast Track Court No.1,<\/p>\n
                    Ara in Sessions Trial No.411 of 1992. The four accused<\/p>\n
                    persons were put on trial for a charge under Section 302<\/p>\n
                    IPC by the trial court, out of whom appellant Praveen<\/p>\n
                    Kumar Singh was the only accused who was named in the FIR.
\n                                       -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
The remaining three accused persons were summoned under<\/p>\n
Section      319       Cr.P.C.        and    were    put     on    trial    along       with<\/p>\n
appellant          Praveen       Kumar        Singh.       While       delivering        the<\/p>\n
judgement the learned trial Judge acquitted accused Sushil<\/p>\n
Kumar Singh, Bimal Kumar Singh and Bijai Kumar Singh of<\/p>\n
the charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code. As regards<\/p>\n
appellant Praveen Kumar Singh he was also acquitted under<\/p>\n
Section 302 of the Penal Code for the reason that the<\/p>\n
learned trial Judge felt that offence was not made out in<\/p>\n
the    face       of    the     evidence          available       on    record     and    an<\/p>\n
offence       under          Section      304     part-II     IPC      could      be    what<\/p>\n
appeared          committed          by     appellant      Praveen        Kumar    Singh.<\/p>\n
Accordingly,            the     appellant           Praveen       Kumar     Singh        was<\/p>\n
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years.<\/p>\n
             2.        The     appellant           Praveen        Kumar     Singh        has<\/p>\n
questioned the propriety of the finding of his guilt and<\/p>\n
the    appropriateness               of     the   sentences       passed        upon    him,<\/p>\n
whereas the Government Appeal has been preferred by the<\/p>\n
State of Bihar to challenge the acquittal of the accused<\/p>\n
persons under Section 302 of the IPC as also the finding<\/p>\n
of the learned trial court on guilt of appellant Praveen<\/p>\n
Kumar Singh of committing offence under Section 304 II<\/p>\n
IPC.    It    further          prayed        that   the     sentence       passed       upon<\/p>\n
Praveen Kumar Singh had to be enhanced by setting aside<\/p>\n
his    acquittal             under    Section       302    of     the     IPC     and    the
\n                                   -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
acquittal       of    the       other    respondents       of    the    Government<\/p>\n
Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
           3. We have heard the two appeals together and we<\/p>\n
are disposing them of by the present judgement.<\/p>\n
           4.    Ravindra         Kumar    Singh,     the       son    of     Shivjee<\/p>\n
Singh(P.W.6) and some other boys were roasting gram-plants<\/p>\n
for preparing oraha. It is alleged that accused appellant<\/p>\n
Praveen Kumar Singh came there and started giving repeated<\/p>\n
blows with a piece of bamboo as a result of which Ravindra<\/p>\n
Kumar   Singh        was    badly       injured.     The    informant        claimed<\/p>\n
seeing the occurrence from a place outside his house.<\/p>\n
           5. The informant with the help of Nawami Singh(not<\/p>\n
examined),       Shatrghna         Singh(not     examined)and           others     who<\/p>\n
also rushed to the place of occurrence,                         brought his son<\/p>\n
to   Ara   Sadar          Hospital      where   he    was    treated         but   was<\/p>\n
referred        to    Patana         Medical       College       Hospital          and,<\/p>\n
accordingly, the informant brought injured son to that<\/p>\n
hospital in Patna. Ravindra Kumar Singh breathed his last<\/p>\n
on   the   15th      of     March,      1992    at   about       5.30       P.M.   and<\/p>\n
thereafter the fardbeyan(Ext-2)of P.W.6 was recorded by<\/p>\n
Pirbahore police station. It was stated by the informant<\/p>\n
that some of the family members of appellant Praveen Kumar<\/p>\n
Singh had assisted him in commission of the offence.<\/p>\n
           6. On the basis of Ext-2, the FIR of the case(Ext-<\/p>\n
3)was   drawn        up    by    P.W.7    and   he    himself         took    up   the
\n                              -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
investigation. He came to the village of occurrence and<\/p>\n
inspected the place where the occurrence had taken place.<\/p>\n
According to P.w.7, it was an open barren piece of land<\/p>\n
situated by the side of the road which was running from<\/p>\n
Pipra to some other places to its south. P.W.7 found marks<\/p>\n
indicating that the gram-plants had been roasted. He also<\/p>\n
inspected the surrounding houses and structures near about<\/p>\n
the place of occurrence and noted down their description<\/p>\n
in the case diary. He, thereafter, recorded the statements<\/p>\n
of witnesses, obtained the postmortem examination report<\/p>\n
and other documents from Patna and, finding the materials<\/p>\n
sufficient, sent up the accused Praveen Kumar Singh for<\/p>\n
trial.\n<\/p>\n
          7.   As    noted   at    the   very    outset,      three   other<\/p>\n
respondents of the Government Appeal were summoned under<\/p>\n
Section 319 Cr.P.C. and were also put on trial along with<\/p>\n
Praveen Kumar Singh which ultimately ended in the impugned<\/p>\n
judgement.\n<\/p>\n
          8. The defence of the accused persons was that no<\/p>\n
occurrence in the manner had really occurred and that the<\/p>\n
accused persons had been implicated falsely on account of<\/p>\n
some ill-will between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
          9.   The   prosecution     examined      eight   witnesses     in<\/p>\n
support of the case. P.W.1 Sheokaran Singh, P.W.2 Rambabu<\/p>\n
Singh    who   was   also    the   son   of     P.W.6   and    brother   of
\n                               -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
deceased, P.W.3 Pradip Kumar Singh and P.W.4 Hare Murari<\/p>\n
Singh gave evidence on the point that they along with the<\/p>\n
deceased had on the day of the occurrence indulged in<\/p>\n
roasting of gram-plants when the occurrence took place.<\/p>\n
They implicated the four respondents of the Government<\/p>\n
Appeal    in   different      acts    by   stating     that   the   accused<\/p>\n
persons came there and started quarreling with them and<\/p>\n
when     the   deceased      protested     the    intervention      of    the<\/p>\n
accused persons in the acts of the deceased and witnesses,<\/p>\n
there was an altercation and ultimately, accused Bimal<\/p>\n
Kumar Singh and Bijai Kumar Singh remonstrated to assault<\/p>\n
the    deceased.      They   further     stated   that   accused    Sushil<\/p>\n
Kumar Singh caught the waist of the deceased and appellant<\/p>\n
Praveen Kumar Singh dealt blows with a piece of bamboo as<\/p>\n
a   result     of   which    the    deceased     was   injured   and     fell<\/p>\n
unconscious who ultimately died in Patna. P.W.5 Ram Niwas<\/p>\n
Singh,    an    eye   witness      has   also    given   account    of    the<\/p>\n
occurrence in the same manner as was given by P.Ws.1 to 4.<\/p>\n
P.W.6 Shivjee Singh is the informant of the case and he<\/p>\n
besides stating the fact that Praveen Kumar Singh dealt<\/p>\n
blows with a piece of bamboo upon his son, also stated<\/p>\n
that there was a remonstration by two accused persons                      of<\/p>\n
the family of accused Praveen Kumar Singh and further that<\/p>\n
one young man caught the waist of the informant whereupon<\/p>\n
accused Praveen Kumar Singh brought a piece of bamboo from
\n                                     -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
his   Dalan(Dalan      is       a    place      meant   for       men   folk       of   a<\/p>\n
family)and blows were given by appellant Praveen Kumar<\/p>\n
Singh repeatedly       on the head of Ravindra Kumar Singh as a<\/p>\n
result   of    which       he    fell     down    unconscious           and   he    was<\/p>\n
brought to Sadar Hospital, Ara from where the deceased was<\/p>\n
referred      to    Patna        Medical        College       &     Hospital        and<\/p>\n
ultimately, Ravindra Kumar Singh died there. P.W.6 gave<\/p>\n
his statement (Ext-2) before the Pirbahore police. P.W.7,<\/p>\n
S.I. Raj Bali Choudhary is the investigating officer and<\/p>\n
P.W.8    Dr.       Sunil        Kumar     Singh     had       held       postmortem<\/p>\n
examination on the dead body of Ravindra Kumar Singh and<\/p>\n
prepared the postmortem examination report(Ext-4).<\/p>\n
           10. The defence did not examine any witness nor<\/p>\n
they produce any documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n
           11. On consideration of the evidence on record the<\/p>\n
impugned judgement was passed.\n<\/p>\n
           12. We have heard Sri Krishna Prasad Singh, the<\/p>\n
learned senior counsel appearing for the sole appellant of<\/p>\n
the   Criminal      Appeal          and   the    four   respondents           in    the<\/p>\n
Government Appeal. We have heard Miss Shashi Bala Verma in<\/p>\n
support of the Government Apeal and we have also heard Sri<\/p>\n
Ajay Kumar Thakur, the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
informant in both the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
           13. Sri Singh, the learned senior counsel for the<\/p>\n
solitary appellant as also the four respondents, has taken
\n                         -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
us through the evidence of witnesses and contended that<\/p>\n
there   are   many   pit-falls   in   the   evidence   of   the<\/p>\n
prosecution. Sri Singh drew our attention, firstly, to the<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W.6 (informant) and submitted that as per<\/p>\n
the evidence of P.W.6 himself he remained in Ara for more<\/p>\n
than six hours and was also approached by the police for<\/p>\n
giving his statement to them but not only did he not give<\/p>\n
the statement, but flatly refused to do it unless his son<\/p>\n
had regained consciousness. Sri Singh contended that in<\/p>\n
fact the informant was not knowing the facts of the case<\/p>\n
or in other words, the manner in which the occurrence had<\/p>\n
taken place and, as such, he was not ready to give his<\/p>\n
statement. It was contended further that the above conduct<\/p>\n
of the informant appears a doubtful conduct inasmuch as<\/p>\n
there could be probability arising out of the evidence<\/p>\n
that he may not be     present on the day of occurrence at<\/p>\n
the village in the above connection. Sri Singh drew our<\/p>\n
attention to the evidence of P.W.1 Sheokaran Singh in<\/p>\n
paragraph 12 in which he has stated that he did not see<\/p>\n
the informant on the day of the occurrence and in fact,<\/p>\n
had met Rambabu Singh(P.W.2) and had stated to him about<\/p>\n
the facts of the occurrence. Sri Singh further contended<\/p>\n
that the informant in the same paragraph         has admitted<\/p>\n
that when he had come back after performing the last rites<\/p>\n
of his son, he was told by P.W.5 Ram Niwas Singh and Ram
\n                                 -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
Kumar Singh(not examined)as to who were the other accused<\/p>\n
persons who had caught hold of his son. This goes to<\/p>\n
indicate, submitted Sri Singh, that the informant was a<\/p>\n
person who was always inclined to lend his ears to others<\/p>\n
and act accordingly. Sri Singh was highly critical of the<\/p>\n
conduct of the informant, in not stating in the FIR itself<\/p>\n
that some other persons either remonstrated the accused<\/p>\n
Praveen Kumar Singh to assault or some one had caught hold<\/p>\n
of the waist of the deceased. It was contended that the<\/p>\n
basic prosecution            case    contained in Ext-2, appears being<\/p>\n
completely departed by the prosecution when the witnesses<\/p>\n
introduced the story that other boys like P.Ws.1 to 4 were<\/p>\n
also    assaulted       by    the     accused       persons,     as    has     been<\/p>\n
narrated by those witnesses. Sri Singh contended that when<\/p>\n
there   is    a   tendency      in    the    witnesses      of    changing     the<\/p>\n
prosecution case from stage to stage or when there could<\/p>\n
be a tendency in a witness to implicate some innocent<\/p>\n
persons      falsely,    then       the     court    must   not       accept   the<\/p>\n
evidence of such witnesses to sustain the conviction.<\/p>\n
          14. Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing      for   the       informant,       attempted        his    best    to<\/p>\n
convince us that the informant may not have known the<\/p>\n
facts   initially       but     as    soon    as     he   knew    it,    he    was<\/p>\n
forthright in making his statements before the police as<\/p>\n
also in the court about the full facts of the case. Sri
\n                                -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
Thakur was candid in conceding as regards the acquittal of<\/p>\n
the three respondents than Praveen Kumar Singh                               of the<\/p>\n
Govt. appeal that order passed by the learned trial Judge<\/p>\n
appears   proper.       Sri    Thakur        was    putting    before        us    the<\/p>\n
background      facts    of    the      case,       as    appearing       from     the<\/p>\n
evidence of       P.W.3 Praveen Kumar Singh and                    submitted that<\/p>\n
it was some days of holidays and the children were roaming<\/p>\n
around    the   fields     and        were       indulging    in    the    acts     of<\/p>\n
preparing oraha and the occurrence appears taking place<\/p>\n
during that course. Sri Thakur contended that the pit-<\/p>\n
falls which were highlighted by Sri Singh, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant, may not be telling the whole of<\/p>\n
the   prosecution        case.        Sri    Thakur      submitted        that     the<\/p>\n
judgement passed by the learned trial Judge as regards the<\/p>\n
conviction of Praveen Kumar Singh appears partially not<\/p>\n
sustainable as the offence under Section 302 was clearly<\/p>\n
made out. Sri Thakur, as such, suggested to us that we<\/p>\n
should    upset    the    finding           of    the    learned     trial       Judge<\/p>\n
acquitting the appellant Praveen Kumar Singh of the charge<\/p>\n
under Section 302 of the Penal Code and should hold him<\/p>\n
guilty, instead of an offence under Section 302 of the<\/p>\n
Penal Code and inflict an appropriate sentence as deemed<\/p>\n
fit and proper under the facts of the case.<\/p>\n
          15.     The    FIR     of    the        fardbeyan    may    not     be     a<\/p>\n
substantive piece of evidence. Nonetheless, it does not\n<\/p>\n
                                 – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
lose the importance of being the basic document of the<\/p>\n
prosecution       which       contains     many         important          details      and<\/p>\n
facts. The defence could by reading out the contents of<\/p>\n
the document, like the fardbeyan and the FIR, to make a<\/p>\n
submission       to     the    court     as        to    what        was    the     basic<\/p>\n
prosecution case and how the witnesses of the prosecution<\/p>\n
deviated        from    its     fundamental             story        and    have       made<\/p>\n
improvements       and    embellishments.                In     other      words,       the<\/p>\n
defence could be entitled in making the submission                                       on<\/p>\n
leading evidence by the prosecution in a manner different<\/p>\n
from the facts as narrated in the FIR. The defence, thus,<\/p>\n
may submit that the prosecution had admitted or had really<\/p>\n
created a third story which was never its case and as such<\/p>\n
could    argue     before      a   court      of    law        not    to    accept     the<\/p>\n
evidence of witnesses who have made a departure from their<\/p>\n
earlier statements or who have given evidence which could<\/p>\n
be in conflict with the basic prosecution story. This is<\/p>\n
why this court had repeatedly held that FIR is the most<\/p>\n
potent weapon in the hands of the defence so as not only<\/p>\n
to challenging the very veracity of its story, but also<\/p>\n
the credibility of its witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
           16. When we come to the FIR, what we find is that<\/p>\n
many     parts    of    the    story     which          were    presented         by    the<\/p>\n
witnesses specially, by the four boys examined as P.Ws.1<\/p>\n
to   4    and    also    by    P.W.5     were       not        contained      in       that\n<\/p>\n
                                – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
document. Sri Thakur was submitting to convince us that<\/p>\n
the court must not lose sight of the psychological state<\/p>\n
of mind of the informant who was carrying his unconscious<\/p>\n
son from his village to Ara Sadar Hospital and from there<\/p>\n
to   P.M.C.H.     and,    as    such,     the   court    should      give   some<\/p>\n
allowance to P.W.6 in not putting down in Ext-2 the story<\/p>\n
which was propounded by P.Ws.1 to 5 when they were stating<\/p>\n
before the court that other persons than appellant Praveen<\/p>\n
Kumar     Singh    also     came        with    him     simultaneously      and<\/p>\n
assaulted them with fists and slaps and thereafter Praveen<\/p>\n
Kumar Singh, at the remonstration of two accused persons<\/p>\n
namely,    Bimal    Kumar      Singh     and    Bijai    Kumar    Singh     gave<\/p>\n
repeated blows with a piece of bamboo on                     the head of the<\/p>\n
deceased. This part of the story is not in Ext-2, the<\/p>\n
fardbeyan. P.W.2 who is the son of informant and brother<\/p>\n
of the deceased was cross-examined on the above facts in<\/p>\n
paragraph 8 of his evidence. He has stated to be assaulted<\/p>\n
repeatedly.       This   story      as   narrated       by   P.W.2   does   not<\/p>\n
appear to be stated by P.W.1 that he was also assasulted<\/p>\n
by one of the accused persons. Likewise, P.W.3 Pradip<\/p>\n
Kumar Singh also does not state as to who assaulted which<\/p>\n
of the witnesses as may appear from the very examination-<\/p>\n
in-chief of P.W.3. Thus, we find that this part of the<\/p>\n
story which was conspicuous by its absence in the FIR<\/p>\n
appears introduced by the witnesses. Not only that P.W.6\n<\/p>\n
                                   – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
the    informant          has    also      given   similar      story    in    his<\/p>\n
evidence. This appears to us quite an improvement in the<\/p>\n
prosecution story which was not initially available to the<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
          17.      P.W.6        the   informant    did    not   state    in    his<\/p>\n
fardbeyan that any other person had either remonstrated or<\/p>\n
had assaulted the witnesses also. What was stated                              was<\/p>\n
that some other family members of appellant, Praveen Kumar<\/p>\n
Singh had also participated with him in the commission of<\/p>\n
the offence. It was not a case of simple participation by<\/p>\n
mere presence at the site of the occurrence, it appears<\/p>\n
from the reading of the evidence of witnesses a clear case<\/p>\n
of participation by doing some overt-act of administering<\/p>\n
assault to the witnesses and the deceased. The informant<\/p>\n
was an eye witness. He has stated in his fardbeyan that he<\/p>\n
saw the occurrence after going somewhere near the place of<\/p>\n
occurrence. The evidence of P.W.6 recorded by the learned<\/p>\n
trial Judge also gives the same impression that he was an<\/p>\n
eye witness. He had perceived the occurrence from his own<\/p>\n
eyes     but    he    did       not   state    the   above      facts    in    his<\/p>\n
fardbeyan.\n<\/p>\n
          18. Not only the above, he has also admitted in<\/p>\n
paragraph      6     of   his     evidence    that   he   arrived       in    Sadar<\/p>\n
Hospital, Ara, the police came there and wanted to record<\/p>\n
his evidence, but he refused giving his evidence to them\n<\/p>\n
                          – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
on the pretext that it was not possible for him unless his<\/p>\n
son   had   regained   consciousness.   Sri   Singh   was   rightly<\/p>\n
contending that P.W.6 had remained in Ara for over six<\/p>\n
hours. This could be collected by reading the evidence of<\/p>\n
P.W.6 in paragraph 6 when he stated that he started from<\/p>\n
Ara for Patna when it was still some part of the night and<\/p>\n
when he reached P.M.C.H., Emergency Ward, it was almost<\/p>\n
dawn and ultimately the deceased died on that particular<\/p>\n
day at 5.30 P.M.. P.W.6 has stated that he reached Ara at<\/p>\n
6 P.M. on 14.3.1992. Thus, Sri Singh has rightly contended<\/p>\n
that he was in Ara for almost the whole night of the<\/p>\n
incident, i.e., for more than six hours. It is not that he<\/p>\n
was all alone. He has admitted in his evidence in same<\/p>\n
paragraph 6 that when he started from the village with his<\/p>\n
injured son, he was accompanied by Ram Kumar Singh(not<\/p>\n
examined)who remained there with him and came back to his<\/p>\n
village by the same vehicle. He has further admitted that<\/p>\n
when he came back after performing the last rites of his<\/p>\n
son, he was informed by P.W.5, Ram Niwas Singh and Ram<\/p>\n
Kumar(not examined)as to who was the other person               who<\/p>\n
caught his son and, accordingly, it could be deduced that<\/p>\n
he named the other accused persons only when he was told<\/p>\n
by the above two persons about their names. The above<\/p>\n
evidence raises an inference in our minds that P.W.6 is a<\/p>\n
person who was prone to listening to other persons and\n<\/p>\n
                            – 14 –\n<\/p>\n
implicating innocent persons, else why should he not name<\/p>\n
those accused persons in the very fardbeyan which was<\/p>\n
given by him after more than 26 hours of the occurrence on<\/p>\n
15.3.1992. One of the two persons, namely, Ram Kumar was<\/p>\n
with him for quite some time and it is expected on account<\/p>\n
of being in accordance with the ordinary human conduct,<\/p>\n
that the said Ram Kumar must have narrated to him the<\/p>\n
details of the incident or P.W.6 would have himself asked<\/p>\n
from him, as that witness had seen the assailants, as to<\/p>\n
who were the other accused persons than Praveen Kumar<\/p>\n
Singh. The very absence of the names of other accused<\/p>\n
persons appears to us a circumstance which belies the<\/p>\n
credibility which could be attached to a witness. We have<\/p>\n
already noted that P.W.6 appears a person who was prone to<\/p>\n
hear others and act            accordingly so as to implicating<\/p>\n
other accused. If this could be the conduct and behaviour<\/p>\n
of P.W.6, then we do not have any hesitation in noting<\/p>\n
that the implication of         Praveen Kumar Singh might also be<\/p>\n
due to canvassing upon the informant by the said Ram Kumar<\/p>\n
and others.\n<\/p>\n
           19.   The   above   inference     gets    support    from     the<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W.1 in paragraph 12. We have some doubt<\/p>\n
about the very presence of P.W.6 at his village on the day<\/p>\n
of   the   occurrence.    P.W.1     claims   himself    to     be   in   the<\/p>\n
company    of    the   deceased     and   P.Ws.2,3   and   4   so   as   to\n<\/p>\n
                              – 15 –\n<\/p>\n
roasting the gram-plants.               P.W.1 has stated in paragraph<\/p>\n
12 that he did not meet Shivjee Singh on the very day of<\/p>\n
the occurrence, rather he met P.W.2 Rambabu Singh who was<\/p>\n
the son of P.W.6 and further that P.W.1 had narrated about<\/p>\n
the incident to P.W.2. This line of evidence of P.W.1 in<\/p>\n
paragraph     12    raises     two      inferences       that      P.W.6,    the<\/p>\n
informant may not be present on the day of occurrence at<\/p>\n
his village and further that P.W.2 Rambabu Singh may also<\/p>\n
not   be   present,    as    he       has   claimed,     at   the    scene    of<\/p>\n
occurrence. The reason is very simple for recording the<\/p>\n
above finding. If Rambabu Singh was really present at the<\/p>\n
scene of occurrence then why should P.W.1 narrate the<\/p>\n
facts   of   the    occurrence        to    P.W.2.   Thus,    we    doubt    the<\/p>\n
credibility    of    the    evidence        of   P.W.2   also.      P.W.6    has<\/p>\n
admitted in his evidence in paragraph 2 at page 43 that he<\/p>\n
was residing outside his village since last 36 years. On<\/p>\n
perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, what we find is<\/p>\n
that on the day of the occurrence they could be within the<\/p>\n
age group of 6-7 years. So this could be very natural that<\/p>\n
most of the children of the village may not be known by<\/p>\n
P.W.6. It may not be an impossibility that most of his co-<\/p>\n
villagers may also not be known to him. When P.W.1 states<\/p>\n
that the informant was not seen on the day of occurrence<\/p>\n
at the village, then there could be a probability that he<\/p>\n
came to know about the assault on his son from others and,\n<\/p>\n
                         – 16 –\n<\/p>\n
naturally, he had believed the statements made by others<\/p>\n
about   the   participants    in    the    offence.      In    the   above<\/p>\n
background there could be many probabilities that P.W.6<\/p>\n
could be acting on account of being misled or misinformed<\/p>\n
as regards the manner of the occurrence. This could be the<\/p>\n
reason that many important facts happened to be rendered<\/p>\n
or introduced probably on account of being canvassed upon<\/p>\n
him by some persons. If this could be the probability,<\/p>\n
which   appears   staring    in    our   faces,   then    it    could   be<\/p>\n
highly unsafe for us to sustain the conviction or to upset<\/p>\n
the order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
         20. We are not saying that Ravindra Kumar Singh<\/p>\n
was not murdered. He was really assaulted brutally and was<\/p>\n
killed, but we have serious doubt about the veracity of<\/p>\n
the evidence and about the truthfulness of the prosecution<\/p>\n
story. We also find ourselves inclined to take a view that<\/p>\n
possibility may not be ruled out that P.W.6 was acting at<\/p>\n
the tips of other so as to implicating persons. In the<\/p>\n
backgrounds of the evidences and inference coming out of<\/p>\n
them, we find that even the conviction of Praveen Kumar<\/p>\n
Singh on account of recording his participation appears<\/p>\n
suffering from grave doubt. It was a case in which Praveen<\/p>\n
Kumar Singh also deserved to be acquitted on account of<\/p>\n
being extended the benefit of doubt and that benefit of<\/p>\n
doubt   we extend to appellant Praveen Kumar Singh.\n<\/p>\n
                                     – 17 –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                      21. We allow this appeal and acquit him by setting<\/p>\n
            aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the<\/p>\n
            trial court. For the reasons, we have just recorded, we<\/p>\n
            dismiss   the   Government   Appeal    also.   Appellant   Praveen<\/p>\n
            Kumar Singh is on bail. He shall stand discharged from the<\/p>\n
            liabilities of his bail bonds.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )<\/p>\n
                                      ( Birendra Prasad Verma,J. )<\/p>\n
Patna High Court,
\nDated, the 10th of
\nMarch, 2010,
\nBrajesh Kumar\/NAFR\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2010 Author: Dharnidhar Jha GOVT. APPEAL (DB) No.5 of 2003 With Cr.Appeal(SJ)No.199 of 2003 Against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.4.2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Ist Fast Track Court,Ara in Sessions Trial No.411 of 1992. GOVT.APPEAL(DB)NO.5 of 2003 […]<\/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-39691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPraveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2010 - 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\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-24T15:43:58+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-24T15:43:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3801,\"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\\\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-24T15:43:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2010 - 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\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-24T15:43:58+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-24T15:43:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010"},"wordCount":3801,"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\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010","name":"Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-24T15:43:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/praveen-kumar-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Praveen Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/39691","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=39691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39691\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}