{"id":42953,"date":"2008-10-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008"},"modified":"2014-02-11T09:39:52","modified_gmt":"2014-02-11T04:09:52","slug":"ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ramcharan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Ramcharan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh<\/div>\n
                                                                           1\n\n\n\n\n                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.510 OF 2002 (D.B.)\n                              - - - -\n               SHAILENDRA SINGH ------------Appellant\n                                 Versus\n                STATE OF BIHAR--------------Respondent<\/pre>\n
                                  With
\n                     CR. APP (DB) No.588 OF 2002\n<\/p>\n
              1. KISHUNDEO SINGH\n<\/p>\n
              2. RAMDEO SINGH     – – – – – – Appellants
\n                                        Versus
\n               STATE OF BIHAR—————Respondent
\n                                  With
\n                     CR. APP (DB) No.642 of 2002
\n              RAMCHARAN SINGH —————-Appellant
\n                                 Versus
\n              STATE OF BIHAR———— Respondent<\/p>\n
           Against the judgment and order dated 7.8.2002
\n           Passed by Additional Court No.2,( Fast Track)
\n           Patna, passed in Sessions Trial No.662 Of 1986\/
\n           260 of 2001 arising out of G.R. Case No. 815 of
\n           1989,Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 97 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
                                 – – – –\n<\/p>\n
           For the appellants: Sri Rana Prataap Singh, Sr.Adv.
\n           (in all the appeals) Sri Ajay Kr.Gautam
\n                                 Sri Aruni Singh
\n                                 sri Sumant Singh
\n           For the State     : Sri Ashwini Kr. Sinha,A.P.P.
\n           ( in all the appeals)
\n                           P R E S E N T<\/p>\n
              THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
\n              THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA\n<\/p>\n
                                – – – –\n<\/p>\n
Dharnidhar Jha,J.-         Appellants Shailendra Singh( appellant in Cr.<\/p>\n
                     Appeal No. 510 of 2002), Kishundeo Singh, Ramdeo<\/p>\n
                     Singh( appellants      in Cr. Appeal No. 588 of 2002)<\/p>\n
                     and Ramcharan Singh(appellant in Cr. Appeal No.<\/p>\n
                     642 of 2002)       along   with other persons, namely,<\/p>\n
                     Bimal Singh, Dipak Ram and Jogendra Singh were<\/p>\n
                     put   on   trial     for   the charges under   Sections<\/p>\n
                     148\/302\/149    and 307\/149 of the Indian Penal Code
\n                                                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
and     were    found           guilty       of     committing          those<\/p>\n
offences       by    the       Presiding         Officer,        Additional<\/p>\n
Court No.2(Fast Track Court), Patna, in Sessions<\/p>\n
Trial No. 662 of 1986\/260 of 2001                              by judgment<\/p>\n
and order of conviction passed on 7.8.2002. The<\/p>\n
aforesaid       appellants              were       awarded            rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for two years for their individual<\/p>\n
convictions          under       Sections          148    and         rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for               five years for their individual<\/p>\n
convictions under Section 307\/149 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal      Code.           Appellants              Shailendra            Singh<\/p>\n
(appellant          in    Cr.     Appeal         No.     510     of     2002))<\/p>\n
Kishundeo Singh and Ramdeo Singh( appellants in<\/p>\n
Cr. Appeal No. 588 of 2002) were awarded rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for life under Sections 302\/149 of<\/p>\n
the   Indian        Penal       Code    and       appellant       Ramcharan<\/p>\n
Singh( appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 642 of 2002)<\/p>\n
was     found       guilty       of     committing            offence    also<\/p>\n
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and<\/p>\n
separately           sentenced              to     undergo            rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment             for     life        for       committing         that<\/p>\n
particular          offence.          The    other       three        accused,<\/p>\n
Bimal Singh, Dipak Ram and Jogendra singh, were<\/p>\n
not found guilty and were acquitted by the same<\/p>\n
judgment.       The        above       judgment          and     order     of<\/p>\n
conviction          are    being        assailed         by    these     four
\n                                                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
      appellants in these three appeals which are being<\/p>\n
      disposed of by the present judgment.<\/p>\n
          2.           The prosecution case is contained in<\/p>\n
the F.I.R.(Ext.4) lodged by P.W.7, Jag Narain Pandit<\/p>\n
in which he alleged                that     at about 5.30 A.M. on<\/p>\n
26.5.1984 the F.I.R. named accused persons along with<\/p>\n
15-20    others       came   out    of     the    house    of     appellant<\/p>\n
Ramcharan Singh with country made guns and pistols<\/p>\n
and     started dismantling his Marai. They also started<\/p>\n
firing shots from their weapons upon which Jagarnath<\/p>\n
Pandit,        the    brother      of     the    informant,       who    was<\/p>\n
preparing            soil(   informant      is    a     potter)    as   also<\/p>\n
Surendra Pandit, who was the nephew of the informant<\/p>\n
and was making rope, ran                   into their house.             Ram<\/p>\n
Prakash Pandit who was the son of aforesaid Jagarnath<\/p>\n
Pandit and who was              cutting tiles was shot at many<\/p>\n
times     by appellant Ramcharan Singh which hit him.<\/p>\n
Appellants       Shailendra        Singh,        Kishundeo      Singh   and<\/p>\n
Ramdeo     Singh        entered     inside        the    house     of    the<\/p>\n
informant        Jagarnath        Pandit (not examined) who was<\/p>\n
shot at and injured by             appellant Kishundeo Singh who<\/p>\n
fell down in the verandah. Phulwa Devi (not examined)<\/p>\n
the wife of Devendra Pandit was shot at and injured<\/p>\n
by appellant Shailendra Singh by his country made<\/p>\n
pistol. Appellant Ramdeo Singh fired from his country<\/p>\n
made     gun    at     Devendra     Pandit        (not    examined)      and
\n                                                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
Sushila Devi( P.W. 5)               as also       at Jag Narain Pandit<\/p>\n
and they were           badly injured.                Jai Prakash Pandit<\/p>\n
(P.W. 1) who was attempting to get out of the Darwaja<\/p>\n
was shot at and injured badly by appellant Ramcharan<\/p>\n
Singh.     It     is     alleged            that       all        the     accused<\/p>\n
accompanying appellant Ramcharan Singh were firing<\/p>\n
shots    continuously          as    also       threw    brick          bats   and<\/p>\n
lastly,         went    away    with       an    ox    but    the       same   was<\/p>\n
resisted by the herdsmen                   and as such the ox                  was<\/p>\n
abandoned by the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
          3.      It was stated in the F.I.R. that the<\/p>\n
   informant and his family members had erected a<\/p>\n
   Marai in front of the Darwaja of the appellants<\/p>\n
   and    were     sitting       there      on        cots,   as        such   the<\/p>\n
   occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
          4.      The case was investigated into and the<\/p>\n
   accused       persons,        as    indicated             in     the     first<\/p>\n
   paragraph of the judgment, were put on trial for<\/p>\n
   the offences as noted above and ultimately the<\/p>\n
   trial ended in the acquittal of the three accused<\/p>\n
   persons and          conviction of the four appellants for<\/p>\n
   the offences with imposition of sentences as noted<\/p>\n
   above.\n<\/p>\n
          5.      The    defence       of       the    appellants         in   the<\/p>\n
   court        below      was        of        complete           denial       of<\/p>\n
   participation as also that, in fact,                             the cattle
\n                                                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
thieves      had      entered        in     the        house     of    the<\/p>\n
prosecution party to               lift the cattle and indeed<\/p>\n
the cattle was lifted which was resisted by the<\/p>\n
informant      and    his      family          members.    The     cattle<\/p>\n
thieves      fired      at     the        informant       and      others<\/p>\n
resulting      in     the     death       of     the     deceased      and<\/p>\n
injuries      to     different       persons      and     because      the<\/p>\n
informant and his family members had land dispute<\/p>\n
with the appellant Ramcharan Singh and others, as<\/p>\n
such,       he falsely implicated them in the present<\/p>\n
case. The defence appears from suggestion given to<\/p>\n
P.W. 3 in his cross examination, as appears from<\/p>\n
page 18 of the Paper Book and also from page 10 of<\/p>\n
P.W. 4, page 18 of P.W. 7(informant). Some of the<\/p>\n
appellants,        like,     Shailendra         Singh     and     Ramdeo<\/p>\n
Sigh took the plea of alibi by stating in their<\/p>\n
respective      statements         under       Section    313     of   the<\/p>\n
Code    of   Criminal        Procedure         that    they     were   not<\/p>\n
present at the place of occurrence and were at<\/p>\n
different      places       when    the     occurrence          allegedly<\/p>\n
took place.\n<\/p>\n
       6.     The     prosecution          examined       in     all    12<\/p>\n
witnesses in support of the charges. P.W. 1 Jai<\/p>\n
Prakash Pandit, P.W. 2 Vijay Kumar Pandit, P.W. 5<\/p>\n
Sushila Devi claimed being injured in the same<\/p>\n
incident. P.W. 2 Vijay Kumar Pandit has not been
\n                                                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
named in the          F.I.R. P.W. 3 Surendra Pandit, P.W.<\/p>\n
4 Subhash Pandit,            and P.W. 6             Lalti Devi        were<\/p>\n
not injured but          supported the allegation in full<\/p>\n
or in part as was done by P.W. 8 Nirmala Devi.<\/p>\n
P.W. 7 Jagnarain Pandit is the informant of the<\/p>\n
case. P.W.9          is Dr. Md.     Afzal who held             the post-<\/p>\n
mortem    examination         on   the        dead    body       of   Ram<\/p>\n
Prakash Pandit          and had prepared the post-mortem<\/p>\n
examination report(Ext.2). P.W. 10 Dr. Parash Nath<\/p>\n
Sahay    had    prepared      Exts.      3     to    3\/5   the    injury<\/p>\n
reports in respect of the injuries found on the<\/p>\n
injured   informant         and    his    family       members     after<\/p>\n
examining each of them. P. W. 11 is S.I. Lakshman<\/p>\n
Prasad    Singh       who   was    the       Officer-in-charge         of<\/p>\n
Naubatpur      Police       Station      and    who     recorded      the<\/p>\n
F.I.R.    on    the     statement        of    the    informant       and<\/p>\n
handed over the charge of investigation to another<\/p>\n
S.I. Ram Naresh Shukla who has not been                        examined.<\/p>\n
P.W. 12         Jitendra Sharma is a co-villager and<\/p>\n
appears an independent             person who also             came out<\/p>\n
in support of the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
    7.         The    defence      has       examined      a   solitary<\/p>\n
witness as D.W. 1 Sanjay Kumar and his evidence is<\/p>\n
not of much importance and                consequence, inasmuch<\/p>\n
as he has simply given the evidence of                           loss of<\/p>\n
the attendance Register of appellant Shailendra
\n                                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
Singh which was required to be produced before the<\/p>\n
learned trial Judge and stated that the same was<\/p>\n
not available         on account of being destroyed in a<\/p>\n
fire.\n<\/p>\n
     8.     On consideration of the evidence of the<\/p>\n
prosecution      and    the   defence,   the   learned       Judge<\/p>\n
passed the judgment in question and inflicted the<\/p>\n
sentence as indicated          in the earlier part of the<\/p>\n
present    judgment       while     acquitting      the      three<\/p>\n
accused,    namely,       Bimal     Singh,    Dipak    Ram    and<\/p>\n
Jogendra Singh.\n<\/p>\n
     9.     Shri Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the appellants in all the<\/p>\n
appeals submitted that the motive as alleged does<\/p>\n
not appear substantiated. It was contended further<\/p>\n
in this regard that it was so innocuous a motive<\/p>\n
as   not   to    be    sufficient    enough    to     impel   the<\/p>\n
accused persons to commit the offence as alleged.<\/p>\n
It was contended that the P.Ws. appeared faltering<\/p>\n
on the most material point and also appeared not<\/p>\n
having made statements which they made before the<\/p>\n
learned Trial Judge. In this regard, the attention<\/p>\n
of the Court was drawn to paragraph 48 of the<\/p>\n
judgment    in        which   the    learned     trial       Judge<\/p>\n
discussed the contradictions allegedly brought                  on<\/p>\n
record by the defence and the effect thereof on
\n                                                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
the    ultimate        proof      of     the     charges.        It    was<\/p>\n
contended that those were vital contradictions and<\/p>\n
they    go to disprove the charges as the witnesses<\/p>\n
appeared       not     making         statements     on        the     most<\/p>\n
material part of the prosecution story. It was<\/p>\n
contended       that     P.W.     1    Jay     Prakash    Pandit        had<\/p>\n
completely changed the                manner of occurrence which<\/p>\n
was initially stated in the F.I.R. Reference was<\/p>\n
made    in    that     behalf     to    the     evidence       of     other<\/p>\n
P.Ws., like, P.W. 7 in order to bring                            out the<\/p>\n
change in the story. It was contended that above<\/p>\n
all the evidence on the manner of occurrence was<\/p>\n
not    free    from      doubt    and    that was        the    case     in<\/p>\n
respect       of   all    the     witnesses      examined        by     the<\/p>\n
prosecution. Learned counsel took us through the<\/p>\n
evidence of P.Ws, 1,2 and 7 in the above behalf<\/p>\n
and their respective depositions recorded by the<\/p>\n
learned trial Judge.\n<\/p>\n
       10.     The     further        contention    was        that     the<\/p>\n
F.I.R. was lodged on 26.5.1984 and it is indicated<\/p>\n
by the document(Ext.4) that it was dispatched to<\/p>\n
the Magistrate on the same day, i.e., on 26.5.1984<\/p>\n
but it was received by the office of the Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial      Magistrate         on    28.5.1984    and,       as     such,<\/p>\n
there were         chances       of weaving out the story so<\/p>\n
as to implicating the accused persons.
\n                                                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
      11.        The     next    contention     was    that      the<\/p>\n
story of recovery of the bullock appears absurd.<\/p>\n
The contention was that the evidence of P.W. 7,<\/p>\n
the informant Jay Narayan Pandit indicates as if<\/p>\n
he had not seen anything and, as such, there is<\/p>\n
nothing stated by him in his F.I.R. about P.W. 2<\/p>\n
Vijay    Kumar    Pandit         being    injured     or     having<\/p>\n
received any injury. It was contended in the above<\/p>\n
connection that he has stated in his evidence that<\/p>\n
when he came back to the Police Station he saw<\/p>\n
other injured, like, Devendra Pandit(not examined,<\/p>\n
Phulwa      Devi(not    examined),       Jagarnath    Pandit(not<\/p>\n
examined) and Sushila Devi(P.W. 5) lying                    injured<\/p>\n
but     the F.I.R. contains the story of individual<\/p>\n
assault on each of them and that indicates as if<\/p>\n
the F.I.R. were a document created subsequent to<\/p>\n
the time at which it has been              shown to be lodged.<\/p>\n
      12.              Learned           Additional          Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor Shri Ashwini Kumar Sinha, arguing for<\/p>\n
the prosecution, supported the findings recorded<\/p>\n
by the learned trial Judge and submitted that the<\/p>\n
three    witnesses,      namely,     P.Ws.    1,2     and    3   had<\/p>\n
injuries on their persons along with other persons<\/p>\n
as per the evidence of Dr. Paras Nath Sahay(P.W.<\/p>\n
10) and the time of             receiving those injuries by<\/p>\n
those witnesses probabilises that they had been
\n                                                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
injured in the same incident in                 course of the<\/p>\n
same transaction and         their presence at the scene<\/p>\n
of the occurrence could not be doubted. It was<\/p>\n
contended that the evidence was available on the<\/p>\n
record indicating reasons for non-examination of<\/p>\n
Jagarnath   Pandit     and    that    is   quite      acceptable<\/p>\n
under the special facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     13.          One of the most important aspects<\/p>\n
of the case is that the occurrence took place on<\/p>\n
26.5.1984 and the charges could be framed by the<\/p>\n
trial court on 28.9.1999, i.e., after more than 15<\/p>\n
years. On consideration of the evidence of each<\/p>\n
witness what one could find is that on the date of<\/p>\n
occurrence the witnesses of the case who are the<\/p>\n
close relatives of the deceased and also of each<\/p>\n
other were of very small age. The age of P.W. 1<\/p>\n
has been assessed by the court as 27 years and, as<\/p>\n
such, on the date of occurrence P.W. 1 Jay Prakash<\/p>\n
Pandit would be aged about 12 years. Likewise,<\/p>\n
P.W. 2 Vijay Kumar Pandit was 30 years of age on<\/p>\n
the date of his deposition in the case and he<\/p>\n
could be aged         about 15 years on the date of<\/p>\n
occurrence. Similarly, Surendra Pandit(P.W. 3) was<\/p>\n
aged 40 years and was aged about 25 years of age<\/p>\n
on the date of the occurrence. Subhash Pandit(P.W.<\/p>\n
4)   was    of   35   years   of     age   on   the    date   his
\n                                                                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
deposition was recorded by the trial court and he<\/p>\n
could be around 20 years of age on the date of the<\/p>\n
occurrence. Likewise, P.W.5 Sushila Devi and P.W.<\/p>\n
6 Lalti Devi were also aged about 26 years and 35<\/p>\n
years as per their own statements and could be<\/p>\n
aged   11     years      and    20    years    on    the     date    the<\/p>\n
occurrence took place. The only senior member of<\/p>\n
the family was P.W. 7 Jag Narayan Pandit who was<\/p>\n
70 years of age on the date of giving his evidence<\/p>\n
in the case and could have been aged about 55<\/p>\n
years on the date of the occurrence. Nirmala Devi<\/p>\n
( P.W. 8) could be aged about 15 years                         on the<\/p>\n
date of the occurrence, her age being 30 years on<\/p>\n
the date of recording her evidence. By considering<\/p>\n
the    above      dates    as        regards   the     age     of     the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses one could find that most of<\/p>\n
the witnesses were in their tender age on the date<\/p>\n
on which the occurrence took place and when they<\/p>\n
were deposing, 15 years had already elapsed in<\/p>\n
between.         Their depositions could indicate that<\/p>\n
most     of      them    were    illiterate          persons        whose<\/p>\n
capability        to retain the facts of such horrendous<\/p>\n
an incident in which one of their family members<\/p>\n
had been killed and most of them had been injured,<\/p>\n
would have been very slender. As such, it could<\/p>\n
safely      be    said    that        their    capabilities            to
\n                                                                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
reproduce the facts           which had occurred 15 years<\/p>\n
back    could also diminish           over the years.<\/p>\n
       14.           What the Court has, under the above<\/p>\n
background, to consider is as to whether their<\/p>\n
evidences corroborate the material parts of the<\/p>\n
occurrence. If the witnesses are coming to depose<\/p>\n
after such a long period of time and after about 7<\/p>\n
years    of    the    framing    of   the     charges,        it    is<\/p>\n
possible      that    their   evidence      may    be   containing<\/p>\n
some statements which could be an addition to what<\/p>\n
really they could have stated before the I.O. of<\/p>\n
the    case.    At    the   same   time,     could      not   it    be<\/p>\n
another possibility that they               could have missed<\/p>\n
narrating the minor details of the incident with<\/p>\n
precision and clarity. In the above background,<\/p>\n
the appearance of statements in the prosecution<\/p>\n
evidence as contradictions, appears natural and<\/p>\n
part of the human frailty. Besides, the I.O. of<\/p>\n
the case could not be examined. The witnesses have<\/p>\n
stated, as may appear from the evidence of P.W,1,<\/p>\n
in paragraph 6,         P.W. 2, in paragraph 1 and P.W.<\/p>\n
3, in paragraph 1 that the I.O. of the case was in<\/p>\n
collusion      with     the     accused     persons       and      was<\/p>\n
distorting the statements of the                  witnesses which<\/p>\n
was recorded by him. P.W. 1 has stated in the<\/p>\n
above paragraph that the I.O. had received some
\n                                                                        13<\/span><\/p>\n
bribe from the accused persons for destroying the<\/p>\n
case. This is also evident from the evidence of<\/p>\n
the above noted witnesses and other witnesses as<\/p>\n
well    that      they     had    to    go to       a Magistrate      for<\/p>\n
giving their statements under                      Section 164 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
because        the       I.O.      was       not      conducting      the<\/p>\n
investigation fairly and honestly. If the I.O. of<\/p>\n
the case was not investigating the case fairly,<\/p>\n
properly and honestly then in that situation the<\/p>\n
appearance of contradictions in the statements of<\/p>\n
the witnesses, in our opinion, do not have                            any<\/p>\n
effect       on    the     veracity          of    the    witnesses   as<\/p>\n
exhibited by the evidence.\n<\/p>\n
       15.           The         learned          trial     Judge     has<\/p>\n
discussed the above aspect of the matter, that is,<\/p>\n
the appearance of contradictions in the evidence<\/p>\n
of the witnesses, in paragraph 48 of the judgment<\/p>\n
and has rightly rejected the contention and has<\/p>\n
held that it was not of much consequence.<\/p>\n
       16.           It may appear from the evidence of<\/p>\n
the witnesses, like, P.W. 7 in paragraph 4 that<\/p>\n
initially         the    family        was    residing      in   village<\/p>\n
Chandaus,         P.S.   Bikram        within      the    District    of<\/p>\n
Patna     and        migrated       to       the     present     village<\/p>\n
Jagdishpur, when P.W. 7 was aged 13-14 years. It<\/p>\n
is stated by P.W. 7 that it was his father who had
\n                                                                      14<\/span><\/p>\n
first migrated to the place of occurrence Village<\/p>\n
Jagdishpur. The witness has further stated in the<\/p>\n
same paragraph at pages 35 and 36 of the Paper<\/p>\n
Book that he did not hold any                 landed property in<\/p>\n
that village and had purchased the homestead land<\/p>\n
from one Ram Bihari Sharma and erected a Jhopara<\/p>\n
(hut) and subsequently              appears    to have purchased<\/p>\n
some    more   part     of    the    property         from     another<\/p>\n
person, named, Baidyanath Sigh through a saledeed.<\/p>\n
This part of the story is almost admitted. It may<\/p>\n
appear from the evidence of the witness (P.W. 7)<\/p>\n
in   paragraph      7   that    of    the     informant’s      caste,<\/p>\n
there were only two families, that is,                   P.W. 7 and<\/p>\n
his brother Jagarnath Pandit and other residents<\/p>\n
of the village were of other castes. The further<\/p>\n
story    of    purchase       has    been     stated    by     him   in<\/p>\n
paragraph 8 of his evidence. It is indicated by<\/p>\n
the evidence on record including                    the evidence of<\/p>\n
P.W. 12 that some part of the property had been<\/p>\n
purchased      by   accused      Ramcharan       Singh    and    some<\/p>\n
part by P.W. 7 and his brother Jagarnath Pandit.<\/p>\n
It is indicated further by P.W. 1 and others that<\/p>\n
after   purchasing        the   land    they     had    constructed<\/p>\n
their residential house, cattle shed and were also<\/p>\n
utilizing      it       for     carrying       on      their     caste<\/p>\n
profession of pottery. At a particular part of
\n                                                               15<\/span><\/p>\n
that land they had erected a Jhopari which                   was<\/p>\n
being used by the prosecution party as a Baithaka<\/p>\n
and they used it as a place of relaxation either<\/p>\n
by sitting on cots or sleeping there. The motive<\/p>\n
is   that    the    prosecution     witnesses,      who   were<\/p>\n
potters, used to sit in the Jhopari which was in<\/p>\n
front of the house of the accused persons who are<\/p>\n
Bhumihars, ( P.W.7, Paragraph 17) a high caste<\/p>\n
people, which used to cause heartburn and envy                in<\/p>\n
their minds and they had earlier objected to the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses about the sitting on cots in<\/p>\n
the Jhopari in their presence in front of their<\/p>\n
residential house.\n<\/p>\n
     17.     We have a society comprised by various<\/p>\n
castes which are engaged in different vocations.<\/p>\n
In spite of the principle of equality and equal<\/p>\n
protection     of   law    enshrined     in   our   system    of<\/p>\n
democracy besides a time tasted legal mechanism to<\/p>\n
regulate     our    acts   and    behaviour     towards      our<\/p>\n
brethren in society, the fact remains that                    we<\/p>\n
still are not free from grudges and biases which<\/p>\n
we carry in our hearts           as per       our belief and<\/p>\n
social     upbringing      for   other   fellow     countrymen<\/p>\n
who are lowly placed or are treated as low-caste-<\/p>\n
people. It is still a reality that many in the<\/p>\n
villages of our       country carry a conceit for them
\n                                                           16<\/span><\/p>\n
and do not like such persons who belong to the so-<\/p>\n
called low castes to enjoy        decent life. This has<\/p>\n
been causing some sort of consternation in               the<\/p>\n
hearts    of such people, and       further,     they    are<\/p>\n
often found indulging in violent acts only because<\/p>\n
they     could not accept   the     parity     the    people<\/p>\n
belonging to the unprivileged lot draw with other<\/p>\n
people who take pride in treating themselves as<\/p>\n
privileged persons of so-called high castes. This<\/p>\n
is the reason that there are often reports from<\/p>\n
any corner of our country of killing of              persons<\/p>\n
of the downtrodden class of the society and, as<\/p>\n
such, it does not appear unusual that the accused<\/p>\n
persons had been nursing a        grudge and dislike      in<\/p>\n
their minds and were not accepting that the people<\/p>\n
of the exploited and unprivileged lot were sitting<\/p>\n
on cots in their Jhopari in front of the house of<\/p>\n
the appellants in their sight or         presence. I do<\/p>\n
not have any hesitation in accepting the motive. I<\/p>\n
find     in the light of the evidence on record of<\/p>\n
P.W. 4 para 3, P.W. 7 paras 2 and 17 that the<\/p>\n
accused persons were    feeling uneasy and were not<\/p>\n
digesting the parity        the prosecution witnesses<\/p>\n
were drawing with them by enjoying the           privilege<\/p>\n
of sitting on cots and, as such, they had been
\n                                                                          17<\/span><\/p>\n
impelled by their prejudicial thought to teach the<\/p>\n
prosecution party a lesson.\n<\/p>\n
    18.                As        regards        the       manner         of<\/p>\n
occurrence, some of the witnesses examined in the<\/p>\n
case are injured. This appears indicated by the<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W. 10 who has stated that he had<\/p>\n
examined        six injured persons who were brought<\/p>\n
before    him    on     26.5.1984        at     different      hours     of<\/p>\n
time. On perusal of the evidence of P.W. 10, it is<\/p>\n
found that he had found as many as 10 gun-shot-<\/p>\n
injuries on Jagarnath Pandit( not examined), the<\/p>\n
father    of     Jay    Prakash        Pandit      P.W.    1    and     the<\/p>\n
deceased Ram prakash Pandit and those injuries had<\/p>\n
been caused by firearms and were                          dangerous to<\/p>\n
life.    P.W.    10     has      not     stated    as     to   when     the<\/p>\n
injuries could have been caused but after looking<\/p>\n
to Ext. 3 which is the injury report issued by<\/p>\n
P.W. 10 in respect of Jagarnath Pandit, it is<\/p>\n
indicated that the injuries could be caused in<\/p>\n
between    2      to        4    hours     of     his     examination.<\/p>\n
Similarly,      P.W.        10   examined       Jay     Prakash    Pandit<\/p>\n
(P.W. 1) and found three pellet injuries on his<\/p>\n
right    upper    arm,           on      deltoid      region,     and    an<\/p>\n
abrasion measuring \u00bd”X 1\/10″ on his right                           foot.<\/p>\n
Injury no. 1           was grievous and 2 was simple in<\/p>\n
nature.    The        very       discussion        of     injury      no.1
\n                                                                         18<\/span><\/p>\n
indicates that on account of being pellet injury<\/p>\n
it could have been caused by a firearm and within<\/p>\n
2 to 4 hours of examination of P.W. 1. Smt. Phulo<\/p>\n
Devi, another injured was examined by P.W. 10 and<\/p>\n
he recorded pellet injuries quite good in number<\/p>\n
on    her    person     and    those       were    also       caused    by<\/p>\n
firearms, as may appear from Ext. 3\/2 within 2 to<\/p>\n
4 hours of the examination of the lady. Likewise,<\/p>\n
P.W. 2 Vijay Kumar Pandit was examined by P.W. 10<\/p>\n
and two pellet wounds on left side and upper part<\/p>\n
of    the    chest    were     found       which       were   caused    by<\/p>\n
firearms      and it is indicated by Ext. 3\/3 that<\/p>\n
those injuries were caused within 6 to 12 hours of<\/p>\n
the examination of the witness. P.W. 5 Sushila<\/p>\n
Devi had two pellet injuries on her upper calf<\/p>\n
caused by firearm and Ext. 3\/4 indicates that it<\/p>\n
was    also     caused      within     2    to     4    hours    of    the<\/p>\n
examination        of    the     witness.          Another       injured<\/p>\n
Devendra Pandit(not examined)had a total number of<\/p>\n
four    pellet        injuries       described           under     three<\/p>\n
distinct heads by P.W. 10 and those were caused by<\/p>\n
firearm, within 2 to 4 hours of his examination.<\/p>\n
       19.    The witnesses          who have come forward in<\/p>\n
support of the prosecution story have all stated<\/p>\n
that    after      having     shot   and     killed       Ram    Prakash<\/p>\n
Pandit,      the   accused      persons      caused       injuries      to
\n                                                              19<\/span><\/p>\n
p.W. 1 Jay Prakash Pandit and P.W. 2,Vijay Kumar<\/p>\n
Pandit. Accused persons entered into the house and<\/p>\n
fired indiscriminately causing injuries to other<\/p>\n
witnesses including the lady-P.Ws.. The injuries,<\/p>\n
as indicated above, were found             caused within the<\/p>\n
time which probabilities the story as also the<\/p>\n
same    being       caused   simultaneously      during     the<\/p>\n
course of the incident.           Thus, the presence of<\/p>\n
P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 and others                who were injured<\/p>\n
could not be doubted. They were injured. They did<\/p>\n
not    have   any   reason   to   falsely     implicate     the<\/p>\n
accused persons or to replace the real culprits by<\/p>\n
the appellants. The manner of occurrence as stated<\/p>\n
by the above witnesses is also consistent. The<\/p>\n
witnesses     examined   have     stated    as   to   how   the<\/p>\n
accused persons came and killed Ram Prakash Pandit<\/p>\n
and caused injuries to them and other persons of<\/p>\n
their family. The evidence of P.W. 9 Dr. Afzal who<\/p>\n
held    post-mortem examination on the dead body of<\/p>\n
Ram Prakash Pandit       indicates that more than one<\/p>\n
shot were fired at him and his death was caused on<\/p>\n
that account. The witnesses, P.Ws 1 to 4 and 7,<\/p>\n
have all stated that appellant Ram Charan fired<\/p>\n
one shot followed by another shot, when appellant<\/p>\n
Shailendra Singh stated that he was still alive<\/p>\n
and thereon appellant Ramcharan Singh fired the
\n                                                                  20<\/span><\/p>\n
second shot killing the deceased. Likewise, the<\/p>\n
injured witnesses who have been examined in the<\/p>\n
case, gave a consistent story about the manner                  as<\/p>\n
to how they received injuries and at whose hands.<\/p>\n
      20.    The non-examination of Jagarnath Pandit,<\/p>\n
one of the injured witnesses, was highlighted by<\/p>\n
Sri   Singh,   the     learned   senior   Counsel        for   the<\/p>\n
appellants. It was contended that, he being the<\/p>\n
father of the deceased and injured P.Ws. 1 and 2,<\/p>\n
was withheld by the prosecution. It could                 really<\/p>\n
be a matter of enquiry for the court as to why the<\/p>\n
above named witness was not produced and examined,<\/p>\n
when the prosecution story indicated that he was<\/p>\n
among the first few persons, who had been                      hit,<\/p>\n
and who as per the evidence on acquisition of land<\/p>\n
as given by some of them including P.W. 7, could<\/p>\n
have been the most material witness. Is there any<\/p>\n
explanation      for    non-examination        of    Jagarnath<\/p>\n
Pandit?\n<\/p>\n
      21.    Though the learned trial Judge has not<\/p>\n
placed      reliance    on    the   evidence        of    P.W.12<\/p>\n
Jeetendra     Sharma,    as   regards   the    occurrence,       I<\/p>\n
feel that his evidence on some aspects of the case<\/p>\n
could be utilized as the defence did not challenge<\/p>\n
those statements of P.W.12 and, rather, appears<\/p>\n
introducing those facts through               cross-examining
\n                                                             21<\/span><\/p>\n
the witness. P.W. 12 was cross-examined on the<\/p>\n
genealogy   of     the   vendor   of   the    land   to    the<\/p>\n
informant and Jagarnath Pandit and the acquisition<\/p>\n
of the land by the prosecution side. The state of<\/p>\n
health of Jagarnath was stated to by P.W. 12 in<\/p>\n
his examination-in-chief in paragraph 1. He was<\/p>\n
cross-examined     on    this   fact    in    paragraph     8,<\/p>\n
wherein the witness was indicating his lack of<\/p>\n
knowledge about Jagarnath Pandit being               treated<\/p>\n
for    insanity.     The    witness     stated       in    his<\/p>\n
examination-in-chief that after the death of his<\/p>\n
son, that’s, the deceased, Jagarnath had become<\/p>\n
mentally ill. There was no challenge even by a<\/p>\n
suggestion to P.W.12 that his above statement was<\/p>\n
false. Thus, it could safely be              held that the<\/p>\n
reason for the non-examination of Jagarnath Pandit<\/p>\n
may not be false rather the explanation appears<\/p>\n
on record for his non-production in court.<\/p>\n
      22.     All    the   witnesses    examined      in   the<\/p>\n
case by the prosecution are related by blood among<\/p>\n
each other as also to the deceased. P.W.7, the<\/p>\n
informant of the case, is none else than                   the<\/p>\n
uncle of the deceased and father of P.W. 4 Subhash<\/p>\n
Pandit. P.W. 6 Lalti Devi is the wife of P.W. 4<\/p>\n
Subhash Pandit. P.W. 1 Jai Prakash Pandit, P.W. 2<\/p>\n
Vijay Kumar Pandit and P.W. 3 Surendra Pandit are
\n                                                                            22<\/span><\/p>\n
sons of Jagarnath Pandit and brothers of                          deceased<\/p>\n
Ram Prakash Pandit. The lady witnesses are the<\/p>\n
wives of the witnesses              who are either the sons or<\/p>\n
nephews of            the informant P.W.7 and Jagarnath<\/p>\n
Pandit.       Thus,     their       interestedness               could     be<\/p>\n
inferred      not     because    they        are    related        to    each<\/p>\n
other by blood, but because they had an interest<\/p>\n
in the result of the present case also as                                they<\/p>\n
could be impelled             by an urge within them to see<\/p>\n
that    the    accused        persons         were       convicted        and<\/p>\n
sentenced. This situation of interestedness is not<\/p>\n
sufficient in itself to reject their evidence in<\/p>\n
its    entirety       rather     the        Court    is     required       to<\/p>\n
appreciate       their evidence with care and caution<\/p>\n
and    to   search      for     some     such       features       in     the<\/p>\n
evidence which could stand them out as truthful<\/p>\n
witnesses.      There       could      be    many        parameters       for<\/p>\n
evaluating      the     value       of      the     evidence       of     the<\/p>\n
interested witnesses and holding them truthful or<\/p>\n
untruthful.         Being   injured         makes        their    presence<\/p>\n
probable;       which       never        makes           them     truthful<\/p>\n
witnesses.          Truthfulness            of      evidence        of      a<\/p>\n
particular      witness       has    always         to    be     judged   on<\/p>\n
other parameters, like, the very facts narrated by<\/p>\n
the witness, could render him untruthful or some<\/p>\n
other circumstances appearing from his evidence in
\n                                                                      23<\/span><\/p>\n
that    behalf,     like     implicating    a   man     who    could<\/p>\n
never have been implicated under any circumstance<\/p>\n
and    that   too      for    a graver     charge.      The    other<\/p>\n
circumstances could be that the witness has taken<\/p>\n
a complete u-turn to come up with a                     completely<\/p>\n
new story which could be different from the                    basic<\/p>\n
prosecution     version       or   whose   evidence      does       not<\/p>\n
inspire the confidence of the                 Court. A witness<\/p>\n
whose presence is doubted by the court, could also<\/p>\n
be an untruthful witness. These are some of the<\/p>\n
illustrative        circumstances     which     could         not    be<\/p>\n
exhaustive.\n<\/p>\n
       23.        Keeping      the    above     in      mind        and<\/p>\n
reading the evidence with care and caution, what<\/p>\n
has struck me the most to hold the witnesses as<\/p>\n
truthful was that the witnesses have not claimed<\/p>\n
themselves to be the witnesses to the                    whole of<\/p>\n
the occurrence. If one could carefully consider<\/p>\n
the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 ,3 and 4 and others<\/p>\n
except P.W. 7, what one may find could                    be that<\/p>\n
they did not appear to claim that                they had seen<\/p>\n
the entire occurrence. This could not come out<\/p>\n
clearly unless one is very much alert in reading<\/p>\n
the evidence. One could find that they had claimed<\/p>\n
themselves to be the witnesses to the occurrence<\/p>\n
which had taken place outside the lady section of
\n                                                                   24<\/span><\/p>\n
the house and at the darwaja and its sahan where<\/p>\n
the deceased was cutting tiles or P.W. 3 Surendra<\/p>\n
Pandit was making rope or any third man, like,<\/p>\n
Jagarnath Pandit(not examined) was preparing                   soil<\/p>\n
for making the tiles.              They have honestly stated<\/p>\n
that after having shot and killed the deceased Ram<\/p>\n
Prakash Pandit and having injured Surendra Pandit<\/p>\n
and Jagarnath Pandit,            the accused persons entered<\/p>\n
inside the lady          section of the house and injured<\/p>\n
the    lady      witnesses    and    Jagarnath       Pandit(     not<\/p>\n
examined)           as    also      Devendra    Pandit.        These<\/p>\n
witnesses        have    consistently       narrated     the   same<\/p>\n
sequence except for the minor aberrations here and<\/p>\n
there, like, P.W. 1 having introduced the fact<\/p>\n
that he was hit and injured by Shailendra Singh,<\/p>\n
whereas, in the F.I.R. the informant                  stated that<\/p>\n
it    was   accused      Ramcharan    who    had     injured    him.<\/p>\n
Similarly, at page 33 of the Paper Book, P.W. 7<\/p>\n
has introduced a story              of P.W. 2 being fired at<\/p>\n
and injured outside the house whereas P.W. 2 Vijay<\/p>\n
Kumar Pandit claimed that he was injured when he<\/p>\n
was    inside      the    house.     These     are    very     minor<\/p>\n
omissions or aberrations. As             already pointed out<\/p>\n
earlier     in    the    present    judgment,      the   witnesses<\/p>\n
were narrating the incident after 15                 years of the<\/p>\n
occurrence and, as such, they might be faltering
\n                                                                      25<\/span><\/p>\n
on the details of such an incident                   where as many<\/p>\n
as six persons were injured and the seventh was<\/p>\n
killed.    The    incident,      as     it    occurred,       and   the<\/p>\n
manner in which the witnesses were being targeted<\/p>\n
by a group of armed persons must have made them to<\/p>\n
run for their lives. The honesty of the witnesses<\/p>\n
could further be gathered from one evidence of<\/p>\n
Lalti    Devi    who      stated      that when       she     saw   her<\/p>\n
family    members      being     shot    at    and    hit     she   was<\/p>\n
frightened and         closeted herself inside the room<\/p>\n
and when the        firing had died down, she came out<\/p>\n
of the room and found her family members lying<\/p>\n
injured.        Similarly,       P.W.8        Nirmala        Devi   in<\/p>\n
paragraph 4 of her cross examination has stated<\/p>\n
that while she was returning after attending to<\/p>\n
the call of nature and             was in a Gali just near<\/p>\n
the outer section of her house,                      she heard the<\/p>\n
sounds     of    firing    and     found      that     the    injured<\/p>\n
persons were writhing in              pain. These features in<\/p>\n
the evidence of the witnesses make them reliable<\/p>\n
inasmuch as if they were to create any story, they<\/p>\n
could have created it by stating that some of them<\/p>\n
were inside the house and               saw the occurrence and<\/p>\n
could very well have stated that he or she was hit<\/p>\n
inside it. But they have not                 brought in any such<\/p>\n
improvement which could be unnatural.                   They appear
\n                                                                             26<\/span><\/p>\n
coming        with     clear     facts     which         describes         the<\/p>\n
occurrence       as    seen     individually            by    them.       They<\/p>\n
might be appearing to the learned defence counsel<\/p>\n
faltering on some material points, but I find them<\/p>\n
trustworthy           witnesses         and        their           evidence<\/p>\n
acceptable.          The    above     discussions            of    evidence<\/p>\n
takes care of the contention that the witnesses<\/p>\n
were making contradictory statements on the manner<\/p>\n
of occurrence. I have pointed out                            a couple of<\/p>\n
aberrations in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 and<\/p>\n
having gone through the evidence of the witnesses,<\/p>\n
I find       a consistency and a              ring of truth in it<\/p>\n
and their evidence inspiring confidence.<\/p>\n
       24.            The contention was that the                    F.I.R.<\/p>\n
was lodged on 26.5.1984 and the Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate       received       the    copy        of    the       same     on<\/p>\n
28.5.1984 and, as such, there was                       every chance of<\/p>\n
weaving out a false story so as to implicating the<\/p>\n
innocent persons. There does not appear any reason<\/p>\n
to     accept        the     contention        inasmuch             as     the<\/p>\n
background       of    the     witnesses      is    such          that   they<\/p>\n
could not have influenced things in their favour.<\/p>\n
They    are   poor         potters   who   are      generally            found<\/p>\n
belonging       to    the     lowest   level       of        the   society,<\/p>\n
economically. They were share-croppers, having no<\/p>\n
landed properties of their own(P.W.3, paragraph
\n                                                                        27<\/span><\/p>\n
3).    They        live their lives everywhere in this<\/p>\n
State     by       creating       pots      and    selling    them    all<\/p>\n
around.       They       are   the    congenial       lot,   peacefully<\/p>\n
pursuing their vocation. The witnesses have stated<\/p>\n
as to how the investigating Officer of the case<\/p>\n
was distorting facts by not recording them truly<\/p>\n
and was creating records so as to                        destroying the<\/p>\n
case.     I have discussed it in the earlier part of<\/p>\n
the judgment. The accused persons, I find, are<\/p>\n
wealthy persons having                licensed arms and belonged<\/p>\n
to a community( as per P.W. 7 Paragraph 17) which<\/p>\n
is known for its might. It                   still continues to be<\/p>\n
some     part       of     our     social        realities    that    the<\/p>\n
wealthy,       the       mighty      and    the     influential       are<\/p>\n
getting        investigation               and     even      prosecution<\/p>\n
influenced for their benefit. The Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer was not                  produced         and the Officer who<\/p>\n
was examined             in the case was not cross-examined<\/p>\n
on the reasons as to why the F.I.R. was received<\/p>\n
late     by     the       Chief      Judicial        Magistrate.      The<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer could                       have been the real<\/p>\n
person to explain                the delay. It could not be on<\/p>\n
account       of    the    witnesses        or     the    informant   who<\/p>\n
could not be accountable for dispatch or receipt<\/p>\n
of the     copy of the F.I.R. It could be the Police<\/p>\n
Officer, like the Officer-in-charge of the police
\n                                                                          28<\/span><\/p>\n
Station or the Investigating officer who could be<\/p>\n
accountable for it and if the I.O. of the case or<\/p>\n
the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station were<\/p>\n
acting under the influence of the accused persons,<\/p>\n
as     appears the case from the evidence of the<\/p>\n
witnesses, then the accused persons                       could not be<\/p>\n
allowed to derive            advantage out of such lapses.<\/p>\n
       25.            The contention was that the story of<\/p>\n
taking away an ox and its recovery was absurd. The<\/p>\n
evidence       on     record    indicates      that        it     was   the<\/p>\n
villagers       who    protested       to    the    accused       persons<\/p>\n
that     having       caused    the     murder       of     his    family<\/p>\n
member,        they could not be as cruel as to moving<\/p>\n
the    property        of    the    informant        as     well(P.W.4,<\/p>\n
Paragraph-1). The manner in which the house of the<\/p>\n
informant was           ransacked and a               member of his<\/p>\n
family       was killed        and many injured, there could<\/p>\n
not be any absurdity merely because the recovery<\/p>\n
memo     was     not        prepared    by     the        Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer.       Besides,       the   defence        also    appears      not<\/p>\n
denying that the ox was attempted to be taken<\/p>\n
away; what they say is that the act was done by<\/p>\n
some thieves in the night and when the informant<\/p>\n
and his family members resisted them the firing<\/p>\n
was done and while Ram Prakash was killed, others<\/p>\n
were    injured.       The     defence      version        appears      not
\n                                                               29<\/span><\/p>\n
acceptable       and probable because, the Doctors who<\/p>\n
either    held     the    post-mortem     examination         or<\/p>\n
examined the injured have given the time of death<\/p>\n
or injuries and that overrules the               time suggested<\/p>\n
by the defence to P.W. 7 in Paragraph 18.<\/p>\n
    26.          Shri Singh, learned Senior             counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellants, was arguing that if at all the<\/p>\n
accused persons had any grievance or dislike for<\/p>\n
the informant and his family members for erecting<\/p>\n
the Jhopari and         sitting there on cots, they could<\/p>\n
have very well objected to the very erection of<\/p>\n
the jhopari on the day it was            done.     Why after so<\/p>\n
many years the accused persons could                  vandalize<\/p>\n
it. It could be very difficult for the Court to<\/p>\n
answer the argument of the learned Senior counsel<\/p>\n
merely    for    the    reason,   that   it   could    be   very<\/p>\n
difficult for anyone to say          as to what was moving<\/p>\n
in others       minds    and hearts.      An accused could<\/p>\n
better know as to why they did not do any act on a<\/p>\n
particular day or prior to the day, they really<\/p>\n
did it. The reasons for doing or not doing the<\/p>\n
act, as complained of, could best be known to the<\/p>\n
accused persons because this could be relatable to<\/p>\n
their    mental state.\n<\/p>\n
    27.           On consideration of the evidence on<\/p>\n
record, I       find    that the judgment and order of
\n                                                                               30<\/span><\/p>\n
              conviction were properly passed under the evidence<\/p>\n
              on     the    record.       There     does   not    appear    any<\/p>\n
              illegality         in   appreciation    of   the   evidence   and<\/p>\n
              arriving at the findings. The conviction appears<\/p>\n
              properly      recorded.       The     sentences    also   appear<\/p>\n
              proper.\n<\/p>\n
                           28.        In the result, the three appeals<\/p>\n
               are    found to be of no merit and the same are<\/p>\n
               dismissed. Appellants Kishundeo Singh, Ramdeo<\/p>\n
               Singh and Shailendra Singh are on bail. They<\/p>\n
               shall surrender to their bonds in the court<\/p>\n
               below, as their bonds are cancelled, to serve<\/p>\n
               out    their      sentence    with    appellant    Ramcharan<\/p>\n
               Singh who is           already in custody.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                         ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)\n\nShiva Kirti Singh J.-      I agree.\n\n\n\n                                        (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)\n\nPatna High Court,\nThe 16   October,2008\nKanth\/ A.F.R.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Ramcharan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 2008 Author: Shiva Kirti Singh 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.510 OF 2002 (D.B.) – – – – SHAILENDRA SINGH ————Appellant Versus STATE OF BIHAR————–Respondent With CR. APP (DB) No.588 OF 2002 1. KISHUNDEO SINGH 2. RAMDEO SINGH – – – – – – Appellants […]<\/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-42953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamcharan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 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\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramcharan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-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=\"2008-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-11T04:09:52+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=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramcharan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-11T04:09:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":6223,\"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\\\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Ramcharan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-11T04:09:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramcharan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 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":"Ramcharan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 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\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramcharan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-11T04:09:52+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":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramcharan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-11T04:09:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008"},"wordCount":6223,"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\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008","name":"Ramcharan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-11T04:09:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramcharan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-16-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramcharan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 October, 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\/42953","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=42953"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42953\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}