{"id":61828,"date":"2008-09-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-08-24T10:17:59","modified_gmt":"2017-08-24T04:47:59","slug":"mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Madhavendra Saran<\/div>\n
                     Death Reference no. 8 of 2007\n                                 With\n                     Cr.Appeal no. 1152 of    2007\n                                 With\n                     Cr.Appeal no. 1338 of    2007\n                                =====\n<\/pre>\n
                   IN DEATH REFERENC No.8 OF 2007<\/p>\n
             STATE OF BIHAR————————–(Appellant)
\n                              Versus
\n             LAXMI NARAYAN SINGH @ LAXMI SINGH——(Respondent)
\n                                with
\n                  IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1152 of 2007
\n             LAXMI NARAYAN SINGH @ LAXMI SINGH @ MUNNA @ AMIT\n<\/p>\n
                                                ——(Appellant)
\n                             Versus
\n             STATE OF BIHAR————————-(Respondent)
\n                                with
\n                  IN CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1338 of 2007
\n             MOHAN SINGH—————————–(Appellant)
\n                             Versus
\n             STATE OF BIHAR————————-(Respondent)
\n                               ******
\n             For the Reference & State:Mr. Ashwini Kr Sinha,APP
\n             (in all the appeals)
\n             For the appellant:Mr Rana Pratap Singh,Sr.Advocate
\n                                              And Mr. Arun Singh
\n             (in Cr.Appeal no. 1152\/07)
\n             For the appellant:      Mr.Virendra Kuar, Advocate
\n             (in Cr.Appeal no. 1338\/07)
\n                               =======
\n             Reference made by Sri Ramesh Chandra Singh,
\n             Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.IV, Motihari vide
\n             letter no.176 dated 23.8.2007 and appeals against
\n             the judgment and order dated 14.8.2007 passed in
\n             Sessions Trial no. 101\/16 of 2006\/07 arising out of
\n             Motihari Town P.S. case no. 246\/05 corresponding to
\n             G.R.no.1882\/05.\n<\/p>\n
                                  P R E S E N T<\/p>\n
                   THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH<\/p>\n
                   THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADHAVENDRA SARAN<\/p>\n
M.Saran,J.               The death reference and the two Criminal Appeals arise out<\/p>\n
              of the same judgment and order   dated 14.8.2007 passed by learned
\n                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.IV, Motihari in Sessions Trial no.<\/p>\n
101\/16 of 2006\/07 arising out of Motihari Town P.S. case no. 246\/05<\/p>\n
corresponding to G.R.no. 1882\/05 whereby and whereunder appellant<\/p>\n
Laxmi Narayan Singh @ Laxmi Singh @ Munna @ Amit (Cr.Appeal no.<\/p>\n
1152 of 2007) has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal<\/p>\n
Code (in short as IPC) and has been awarded death sentence. He has<\/p>\n
further been convicted under section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 10,000\/- and in<\/p>\n
default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one<\/p>\n
year. The amount of fine, if realised, shall be paid to the victim. He has<\/p>\n
also been convicted under sections 120B of the IPC and 27(3) of the<\/p>\n
Arms Act but no separate sentence has been awarded. The appellant<\/p>\n
Mohan Singh of Cr.Appeal no. 1338 of 2007 has been convicted under<\/p>\n
section 120B IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000\/- and in default of payment<\/p>\n
of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. He has<\/p>\n
further been convicted under section 386 IPC and sentenced to undergo<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000\/- and in<\/p>\n
default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six<\/p>\n
months. The entire amount of fine, if realised, shall be paid to the legal<\/p>\n
heirs of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
2.            The prosecution story ran as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
              Informant Vikas Kumar Jha (P.W.4) on 3.8.2005 at 22.30<\/p>\n
hours gave fardbeyan before the Inspector, Sri S.B.Pandey of Motihari<\/p>\n
Police Station at Sadar Hospital, Motihari to the effect that on 23.7.2005 at
\n                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
about 5.00 PM a telephone call was received on his telephone no. 239727<\/p>\n
between 3.30 PM to 5.00 PM by his staff Birendra Sah at his medical shop<\/p>\n
from a number of Air tel and the caller inquired about Anil kumar Jha,<\/p>\n
brother of the informant, which was replied by his staff in negative. The<\/p>\n
caller then directed to give the phone to informant Vikas Kumar Jha and<\/p>\n
the caller disclosed his name as Mohan Singh and directed him to send Rs.<\/p>\n
50,000\/- in court premises. The informant told him that his elder brother<\/p>\n
Anil Kumar Jha is the owner of the medical shop and he had gone to<\/p>\n
Babadham and therefore, he is unable to oblige him. Again on 25.7.2005<\/p>\n
in between 11.30 AM to 12.30 PM a call was received by the informant<\/p>\n
from Mohan Singh from mobile no. 9835273765 and he told “you have<\/p>\n
not given money, be ready to face the consequences.” The informant<\/p>\n
disclosed about all these happenings to his family members on 25.7.2005.<\/p>\n
When informant’s brother Anil Kumar Jha returned back home from<\/p>\n
Babadham, the informant informed him about the threatening but his<\/p>\n
brother told that someone might have joked. On 3.8.2005 at about 9.00<\/p>\n
PM while the informant Vikas Kumar Jha (P.W.4) was at Balua Chowk,<\/p>\n
his driver Dhanai Yadav (P.W.1) made a call on his mobile and informed<\/p>\n
that his father Sureshwar Jha (P.W.2) and brother Anil Kumar Jha have<\/p>\n
sustained fire arms injuries. On hearing the news the informant rushed to<\/p>\n
Sadar Hospital and saw his brother Anil Kumar Jha lying dead and the<\/p>\n
persons present there informed that his father had been shifted to<\/p>\n
Rahman’s Nursing Home. The persons present at the hospital also<\/p>\n
disclosed the informant that Laxmi Singh and Niraj Singh have fired and<\/p>\n
caused injuries. The informant came to Rahman’s Nursing Home where
\n                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
his father Sureshwar Jha told that Laxmi Singh fired from his A.K. 47 rifle<\/p>\n
and Niraj Singh was removing other persons from the shop and asking<\/p>\n
him not to fire on others. After making the firing they fled away towards<\/p>\n
Balua Chowk on a motorcycle. Informant’s father after making the<\/p>\n
disclosure became senseless. The informant thus alleged that the crime<\/p>\n
was committed by Laxmi Singh and Niraj Singh at the behest of Mohan<\/p>\n
Singh in which his father and brother were also instrumental. On the basis<\/p>\n
of fardbeyan of the informant, Motihari Town P.S. case no. 246\/05 on<\/p>\n
3.8.2005 was registered against Mohan Singh (in Jail), Niraj Singh, Laxmi<\/p>\n
Singh and others.      After concluding investigation the police submitted<\/p>\n
charge sheet. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the<\/p>\n
court of session for trial. After trial Pankaj Singh was acquitted but two<\/p>\n
appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.<\/p>\n
3.                  The defence of the appellants was total denial of the<\/p>\n
occurrence. Their further defence was that the deceased Anil Kumar Jha<\/p>\n
was in association with many criminals and he was shot dead by other<\/p>\n
criminals. Appellants, however, did not produce any oral and documentary<\/p>\n
evidence in their defence.\n<\/p>\n
4.                  The sole question, therefore, arises for consideration is<\/p>\n
whether the prosecution has proved its case against accused appellants<\/p>\n
beyond all reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
5.                    In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution<\/p>\n
examined 11 witnesses. P.W.1         Dhanai Yadav      is the driver of the<\/p>\n
informant. P.W.2 Sureshwar Jha is injured and father of deceased Anil<\/p>\n
Kumar Jha. P.W.3 Sunil Jha is brother of the deceased. P.W.4 Vikas
\n                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
Kumar Jha is the informant and brother of the deceased. P.W.5 Dr<\/p>\n
S.K.Choudhary is the doctor who had performed post mortem<\/p>\n
examination. P.W.6 Satyadeo Pandey is the first Investigating Officer of<\/p>\n
the case. P.W.8 Chandeshwar Prasad Yadav is the second Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer of the case. P.W.10 Dayanand Singh is the third Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer and P.W. 7 Birendra Narayan Singh is the 4th Investigating Officer<\/p>\n
of the case. P.W.9 Dr Tabrez Aziz is the doctor who had examined injured<\/p>\n
Sureshwar Jha and P.W.11 Sarfuddin Ahmad is Officer Incharge of Naka<\/p>\n
no.4 and had produced the seized three empty cartridges in court.<\/p>\n
6.             P.W.1 Dhanai Yadav stated in court that on the date of<\/p>\n
occurrence at about 8.00 to 8.30 PM he was sitting inside the Shanti<\/p>\n
Medical Hall situated at Hospital Chowk owned by deceased Anil Kumar<\/p>\n
Jha. Anil Kumar Jha and his father Sureshwar Jha were also sitting inside<\/p>\n
the shop. He heard the sound of firing. He saw that Laxmi Singh was<\/p>\n
firing and Niraj Singh was removing the people. The shot fired by Laxmi<\/p>\n
Singh hit Anil Kumar Jha and Sureshwar Jha and thereafter the criminals<\/p>\n
fled away on motorcycle towards Balua Chowk. Thereafter they carried<\/p>\n
Anil Jha and Sureshwar Jha to hospital. Anil Kumar Jha died in the<\/p>\n
Hospital and his father Sureshwar Jha was shifted to Rahman’s Nursing<\/p>\n
Home. Sureshwar Jha was treated in Rahman’s Nursing Home and from<\/p>\n
there he was referred to Patna. He further stated that on the same day the<\/p>\n
police officer came and seized empty cartridges from the shop and<\/p>\n
prepared the seizure list upon which he and Sunil Jha put their signature.<\/p>\n
The signature of this witness on the seizure list is exhibit-1. He identified<\/p>\n
Laxmi Singh, Pankaj Singh and Mohan Singh present in court. He further
\n                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
stated that Pankaj Singh was keeping motorcycle in starting position. He<\/p>\n
further stated that he was working as driver of Anil Kumar Jha since three<\/p>\n
years. Then in cross examination at paragraph-16 this witness stated that<\/p>\n
he was sitting on the floor whereas the deceased and his father were<\/p>\n
selling medicines sitting on the counter. Suddenly he heard sound of<\/p>\n
continuous firing. He stood up, became senseless and fell down and when<\/p>\n
he regained senses he found the deceased and his father in unconscious<\/p>\n
condition. He was not taken to the hospital. He informed Vikas Kumar<\/p>\n
Jha through telephone about the incident. In the same night he went to<\/p>\n
Patna. From Patna he returned back after 15 to 20 days and thereafter his<\/p>\n
statement was recorded by the police. In paragraph-20 he however stated<\/p>\n
that he carried both the injured one after another to the hospital.<\/p>\n
7.             P.W.2 Sureshwar Jha is injured and most important witness<\/p>\n
of this case. He stated that the deceased Anil Kumar Jha was his eldest<\/p>\n
son. He was running a medicine shop near the Hospital gate. On 3.8.2005<\/p>\n
he was sitting in the medicine shop along with his son Anil Jha and the<\/p>\n
driver (P.W.1). At about 8.00 to 8.30 PM two persons arrived on the<\/p>\n
veranda of the shop and one man began to remove the persons present<\/p>\n
there. Next man named Laxmi Singh started firing indiscriminately. His<\/p>\n
son Anil Jha received fire arms injury and fell down. Blood began to<\/p>\n
spread. When he went to save him he also received injury at his ribs and<\/p>\n
fell down. He stood up and rushed towards           his son when he again<\/p>\n
received two fire arms injuries. One pellet hit in his left abdomen and the<\/p>\n
other    pellet hit his backbone. Thereafter he became senseless. He<\/p>\n
regained senses in Dr Rahman’s clinic. The police reached there and
\n                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
inquired from him. Thereafter he again became senseless. He was treated<\/p>\n
at Magadh Hospital, Patna. He returned from Patna after 17 to 18 days.<\/p>\n
The police came at his residence and recorded his statement. He further<\/p>\n
stated that his son died due to fire arms injury on the spot. According to<\/p>\n
this witness,    Mohan Singh had demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000\/- as<\/p>\n
ransom and threatened to face the consequences in case no payment was<\/p>\n
made. He identified Laxmi Singh by asserting that he was the person who<\/p>\n
killed his son. He also identified Mohan Singh as the person who had<\/p>\n
demanded ransom. He identified Pankaj Singh as the person who was<\/p>\n
keeping the motorcycle in starting position. In cross examination at<\/p>\n
paragraph-17 this witness stated that firing was made from a distance of 3<\/p>\n
to 4 feet. He received fire arms injury when he was in the standing<\/p>\n
position. He fell down on the ground after receiving the injury and at that<\/p>\n
time his driver was watching T.V. sitting on the ground.   He had no sense<\/p>\n
to raise alarm. He had no talk with any one in the Government Hospital.<\/p>\n
He had also no talk with any person about the occurrence before<\/p>\n
proceeding to Patna. He further stated in cross examination that after<\/p>\n
receiving senses in Magadh Hospital, he talked about the incident to Sunil<\/p>\n
Jha and his driver.\n<\/p>\n
8.              P.W.3 Sunil Jha is brother of the deceased. He is a hearsay<\/p>\n
witness. He stated that at the time of occurrence he was at Balua Chowk.<\/p>\n
At that time his father and brother were at the medical shop. His driver<\/p>\n
Dhanai Yadav informed him on mobile that firing had been made in the<\/p>\n
shop. He went to the shop. He came to the Hospital and found his brother<\/p>\n
lying dead. He was informed that his father had been taken to Rahman’s
\n                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
Nursing Home. He then went to Rahman’s Nursing Home            and met his<\/p>\n
father who told that Laxmi Singh and Niraj Singh caused fire arms injury<\/p>\n
to them and during talk he became senseless. He further stated that on the<\/p>\n
advice of the doctor of Nursing Home he carried his father to Patna where<\/p>\n
he was treated and returned from there after 20-25 days. He identified<\/p>\n
Laxmi Singh and Mohan Singh but did not identify Pankaj Singh. This<\/p>\n
witness has also stated that Mohan Singh had demanded Rs. 50,000\/- as<\/p>\n
ransom and due to non-payment of the same, the incident occurred. He<\/p>\n
further stated that on the date of occurrence the police came and seized<\/p>\n
empty cartridges of A.K.47 rifle and prepared seizure list upon which he<\/p>\n
put his signature. In cross examination at paragraph 23 he stated that he<\/p>\n
reached at the Nursing Home of Dr. Rahman at about 9.00 to 9.30 PM<\/p>\n
where his father was admitted in I.C.U. He talked to his father after taking<\/p>\n
permission of the doctor.\n<\/p>\n
9.            P.W.4 Vikas Kumar Jha is the informant. He stated that his<\/p>\n
brother Anil Jha was murdered on 3.8.2005 between 8.30 PM to 9.00 PM<\/p>\n
and at that time he was at Balua Chowk. His driver Dhanai Yadav<\/p>\n
informed him on phone that Anil Bhaiya and Chachaji have received fire<\/p>\n
arms injuries. On getting the said information he went to his shop named<\/p>\n
Shanti Medical Hall where there was a crowd. He got information about<\/p>\n
the incident. He went to the hospital and found his brother lying dead. The<\/p>\n
people present there told him that his father had been taken to Rahman’s<\/p>\n
Nursing Home. He went there. His father told him taking the name of<\/p>\n
Laxmi Singh and Niraj Singh that they had fired on them. His father after<\/p>\n
disclosing the name of the accused became unconscious. Thereafter his
\n                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
father was taken to I.C.U. He further stated that 2-3 hours thereafter Dr<\/p>\n
Tabrez (P.W.9) asked him to take his father to Patna. Sunil and driver<\/p>\n
Dhanai carried his father to Patna for further treatment. He has further<\/p>\n
stated that reason behind the occurrence is non-fulfillment of demand of<\/p>\n
ransom of Mohan Singh. He stated        that Mohan Singh had telephoned<\/p>\n
him on 23.7.2005 at his shop and asked him to send Rs. 50,000\/- in court.<\/p>\n
Again Mohan Singh had made a call on 25.7.2005 and threatened to face<\/p>\n
the consequences. He further stated that his telephone connection had<\/p>\n
caller I.D. facility and it had displayed the caller’s phone number. He<\/p>\n
informed about it to the police. He had also informed his brother deceased<\/p>\n
Anil Bhaiya about the demand when he returned from Babadham. His<\/p>\n
brother took it lightly and had told that some one might have joked. He<\/p>\n
returned from Rahman’s Nursing Home to Sadar Hospital where the<\/p>\n
police recorded his fardbeyan. The signature of this witness on fardbeyan<\/p>\n
is exhibit-1\/B. He also identified the signature (exhibit-1\/C) of Prakash<\/p>\n
Kumar Jha and signature (exhibit-1\/D) of Niraj Kumar on the fardbeyan.<\/p>\n
The Police Officer prepared the inquest report upon which he put his<\/p>\n
signature (Exhibit-1\/E) next day in the morning. He identified Laxmi<\/p>\n
Singh and Mohan Singh. However, he did not identify Pankaj Singh. In<\/p>\n
cross examination at paragraph-17 this witness stated that he had talked<\/p>\n
directly with Mohan Singh at Hospital Chowk prior to the occurrence. At<\/p>\n
that time he had not demanded ransom rather he was demanding<\/p>\n
contribution on the occasion of Durga   Puja and Saraswati Puja.<\/p>\n
10.           P.W.9 Dr Tabrez Alam on 3.8.2005 at 9.10 PM examined<\/p>\n
P.W.2 Sureshwar Jha and found the following injuries on his person:-
\n                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
              (i) A tatooing wound over left side of the back of scapula 4″<\/p>\n
below, measuring about 3″x \u00bd “x cavity deep- it is wound of entry;<\/p>\n
              (ii)   A tatooing wound over the left side of humerus,<\/p>\n
posteriorly measuring about 1″x \u00bd”x subcutaneous deep – wound of<\/p>\n
entry;\n<\/p>\n
              (iii) Wound of exit over the left side of humerus anteriorly<\/p>\n
measuring about 1″x \u00bd”x subcutaneous deep;\n<\/p>\n
              Local anesthesia was done on the left side of chest and after<\/p>\n
resuscitation the patient became stable. The patient was referred to heart<\/p>\n
hospital and medicare at Patna for further treatment. Age of injuries within<\/p>\n
six hours.\n<\/p>\n
              Nature of injury:- injury no.(i) was grievous and injury nos<\/p>\n
(ii) and (iii) were simple in nature. All injuries were caused by fire arms.<\/p>\n
The injury report is exhibit-7. In cross examination he stated that there<\/p>\n
was no exit wound of injury no.(i).\n<\/p>\n
11.          P.W.5 Dr S.K.Choudhary on 4.8.2005 was posted at Sadar<\/p>\n
Hospital, Motihari as Medical Officer. On the same day at about 7.15 AM<\/p>\n
he conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Anil Kumar<\/p>\n
Jha and found the following antemortem injuries: –<\/p>\n
              (i) Oval shaped lacerated wound \u00bd” x 1\/3″ x cavity deep<\/p>\n
margin black and inverted over right side of the face just below right eye<\/p>\n
(wound of entry) communicating with injury no.ii;<\/p>\n
              (ii) Lacerated wound oval blackened everted margin of 1<\/p>\n
1\/2″ x 1″ x cavity deep over back left ear (wound of exit);<\/p>\n
              (iii) Lacerated wound blackened and inverted margin \u00bd” x
\n                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
1\/3″ x cavity deep over front of the chest at left side. Sternum in 5th inter<\/p>\n
coastal space (wound of entry) communicating with injury no.iv;<\/p>\n
              (iv) Lacerated wound with everted margin 1″ x \u00bd” x cavity<\/p>\n
deep over left side of the chest in 7th inter coastal space (wound of exit);<\/p>\n
              (v) Rounded lacerated wound of \u00bd” x \u00bd” x soft tissue deep<\/p>\n
with blacken and inverted margin over left shoulder (wound of entry)<\/p>\n
communicating with injury no.vi;\n<\/p>\n
              (vi)   Lacerated wound 1″ x \u00bd” x soft tissue deep with<\/p>\n
everted margin in left axilla (wound of exit);\n<\/p>\n
              (vii) Lacerated wound 1 \u00bd” x 1″ x soft tissue deep with<\/p>\n
inverted margin over inner aspect of left upper arm (wound of entry)<\/p>\n
communicating with injury viii;\n<\/p>\n
              (viii) 2 \u00bd” x 1″ x soft tissue deep with everted margin over<\/p>\n
lateral and lower aspect of left upper arm with communicated fracture of<\/p>\n
shaft and left humerus (wound of exit).\n<\/p>\n
              On dissection he noticed the following:-\n<\/p>\n
              Brain and the meninges pale, fracture of right axilla, left side<\/p>\n
of chest cavity full of blood, lungs lacerated,         heart lacerated. All<\/p>\n
abdominal visceras were pale and in tact. Stomach was containing semi<\/p>\n
digested food materials.\n<\/p>\n
              Time elapsed since death within 12 hours. All the injuries<\/p>\n
were caused by fire arms. The death in the opinion of the doctor took<\/p>\n
place due to haemorrhage and shock caused by the abovementioned<\/p>\n
injuries. Post mortem report is exhibit-2. According to the doctor, all the<\/p>\n
above injuries were caused by the same fire arms.\n<\/p>\n
                          12<\/span><\/p>\n
12.           P.W.6 Satyadeo Pandey on 3.8.2005 was posted as Officer<\/p>\n
Incharge of Motihari Town Police Station. On the same day at about 20.50<\/p>\n
hours he received information that firing has been made at the Hospital<\/p>\n
Chowk. On getting information         he went to Hospital Chowk after<\/p>\n
registering Sanha no. 97 dated 3.8.2005 at the Police Station. He was<\/p>\n
informed at the Hospital Chowk that firing had been made in Shanti<\/p>\n
Medical Hall and Anil Kumar Jha had been killed in the said firing and his<\/p>\n
father Sureshwar Jha had been sent to Rahman Clinic for treatment. He<\/p>\n
recorded the fardbeyan of Vikash Kumar Jha (P.W.4) in Sadar Hospital,<\/p>\n
Motihari. The said fardbeyan is exhibit-3. Thereafter he went to Rahman<\/p>\n
Nursing Home and talked to Sureshwar Jha (P.W.2). He recorded his<\/p>\n
statement also. He learnt later on that Sureshwar Jha has been referred to<\/p>\n
Patna. He further stated that when he was ready to record the statement of<\/p>\n
Sureshwar Jha the doctor advised him to take his statement later on<\/p>\n
because his condition was serious. He arranged Ambulance for carrying<\/p>\n
Sureshwar Jha for Patna. From Rahman Nursing Home he came to the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence and inspected the same. He found blood in huge<\/p>\n
quantity scattered on the floor of the shop. He also found several sign of<\/p>\n
firing on cartoons kept in the almirah of the shop. He found three empty<\/p>\n
cartridges of A.K. 47 rifle in the Sahan portion of the shop. The seizure<\/p>\n
list of the empty cartridges was prepared in presence of Sunil Jha and the<\/p>\n
driver Dhanai. The inquest report was prepared in his presence by the<\/p>\n
A.S.I. Jagdish Choudhary. The inquest report is exhibit-6. He handed<\/p>\n
over the charge of investigation to S.I. Sanjai Jha on 3.9.2005. In cross<\/p>\n
examination he stated that he did not send the FIR late to the court.
\n                          13<\/span><\/p>\n
13.           P.W.7 Birendra Narayan Singh on 19.7.2006 took over charge<\/p>\n
of investigation from the then Officer Incharge. He examined the case<\/p>\n
diary and the supervision note and submitted charge sheet against Laxmi<\/p>\n
Singh.\n<\/p>\n
14.             P.W.8 Chandeshwar Prasad Yadav took over the charge of<\/p>\n
investigation of the case on 4.10.2005 from P.W.6. He received post<\/p>\n
mortem report. He recorded inquest report in the case diary. He submitted<\/p>\n
charge sheet against Binda Singh and Mohan Singh and kept investigation<\/p>\n
pending against other accused persons. In paragraph 14 he has stated that<\/p>\n
he learnt that mobile no. 9835273765 was of Mohan Singh. Mobile no.<\/p>\n
9431428630 was of Laxmi Singh. Telephone no. of shop of the deceased<\/p>\n
was 06252-239727. He has further stated that on 25.7.2005 at 11.21-50<\/p>\n
hours    conversation was made for 54 seconds from mobile no.<\/p>\n
9835273765 to telephone no. 06252-239727. Then at paragraph 16 this<\/p>\n
witness stated that on 23.7.2005 four calls were made between mobile nos.<\/p>\n
9431428630 and 9835273765. Then on 3.8.2005 five calls were made<\/p>\n
from mobile of Laxmi Singh to mobile of Mohan Singh. The Call details<\/p>\n
of mobile no. 9835273765 has been marked as exhibit-10 and the print<\/p>\n
out copy of the said mobile has been marked as exhibit.9. This witness has<\/p>\n
further said that he tried to find out the names in which SIMS of these<\/p>\n
mobile nos.     had been allotted but could not receive any report. He<\/p>\n
however, stated that the informant had provided those mobile numbers to<\/p>\n
him.\n<\/p>\n
15.            On behalf of the appellants it has been seriously contended<\/p>\n
that the family members of the deceased had shown extremely unnatural
\n                           14<\/span><\/p>\n
conduct by not informing about the demand of ransom and also not<\/p>\n
disclosing the name of the assailants immediately after the incident. In this<\/p>\n
connection learned counsel referred to the evidence of P.Ws 1,2,4 and 6.<\/p>\n
He contended that though the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on<\/p>\n
3.8.2005 at 22.30 hours but the same was received in the office of Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate, Motihari on 5.8.2005. The inquest report was<\/p>\n
prepared on 4.8.2005 but the case number over the same was not<\/p>\n
mentioned. He further contended that on the post mortem report also the<\/p>\n
case number was not mentioned. He thus contended that the whole FIR is<\/p>\n
antedated and fabricated one. In support of his argument that delay of one<\/p>\n
day in sending the FIR is fatal reliance has been placed on the following<\/p>\n
two decisions of the Supreme Court. (1) AIR 1976 SC 2423 and (2) AIR<\/p>\n
1994 suppl.(2) SCC 372.\n<\/p>\n
16.            As mentioned above the occurrence took place on 3.8.2005<\/p>\n
at 8-8.30 PM in the medicine shop of P.W.4 situated at Hospital Chowk,<\/p>\n
Motihari. At the time of firing P.Ws 1,2 and the deceased Anil Kumar Jha<\/p>\n
were present in the shop. P.W.2 and his son Anil Kumar Jha were engaged<\/p>\n
in selling the medicine. The driver, P.W.1, was sitting on the floor and<\/p>\n
watching the T.V. Suddenly appellant Laxmi Singh and Niraj Singh<\/p>\n
arrived in the shop and Laxmi Singh started indiscriminate firing from<\/p>\n
A.K.47 rifle. P.W.2 and his son Anil kumar Jha became severely injured<\/p>\n
due to firing. Therefore, it is not expected that they would have disclosed<\/p>\n
the name of the assailant to the public. P.W.1 is a driver and he might not<\/p>\n
have dared to disclose the name of the accused on telephone to P.W.4. He<\/p>\n
might not also have dared to disclose the name of accused to the public for
\n                          15<\/span><\/p>\n
the reason that both the appellants have criminal background. P.Ws 1,2,3<\/p>\n
and 4 have identified accused appellants in open court. It is true that the<\/p>\n
FIR was seen by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari on 5.8.2005. It is<\/p>\n
also correct that the inquest report was prepared on 4.8.2005. The<\/p>\n
occurrence took place in the night of 3.8.2005. In the incident one person<\/p>\n
lost his life and other became severely injured. Naturally the whole family<\/p>\n
of the deceased was in great trauma. From the evidence of P.W.6 it<\/p>\n
appears that he was busy in saving the life of P.W.2. He arranged the<\/p>\n
Ambulance for carrying P.W.2 to Patna. The FIR was registered without<\/p>\n
delay and the investigation started on that basis. The inquest report of<\/p>\n
course was prepared on the next day but the seizure of empty cartridge<\/p>\n
was done on the date of occurrence itself. There is evidence of P.W.6 that<\/p>\n
when he went to record the statement of P.W.2 the doctor advised him to<\/p>\n
take his statement later on as his condition was serious. According to<\/p>\n
P.W.6 this was the reason for not examining P.W.2 at the earliest.<\/p>\n
Presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. There is<\/p>\n
some other evidence also on the record which may been seen. Exhibit-14<\/p>\n
is certified copy of judgment of Tr.no. 1662\/07\/G.R.no. 2295\/04 dated<\/p>\n
16.4.2007 and this has been brought on record to show that Mohan Singh<\/p>\n
was convicted under Arms Act for an occurrence which had taken place<\/p>\n
on 1.11.2004. Then exhibit-13 is certified copy of judgment of G.R.no.<\/p>\n
1347\/05\/Tr.no. 199\/06 and it shows that on 28.4.2006 Mohan Singh was<\/p>\n
convicted under Arms Act for an occurrence which took place on<\/p>\n
9.6.2005. Therefore, Mohan Singh was a man of criminal background.<\/p>\n
17.                  P.W.2 Sureshwar Jha was examined twice by the
\n                           16<\/span><\/p>\n
Investigating Officer (P.W.6). His first statement was recorded on the date<\/p>\n
of occurrence itself and his further statement was recorded on his return<\/p>\n
from Patna. It is true that in between the said period, the Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer did not care to visit Patna to record his statement. No question,<\/p>\n
however, was put to Investigating Officer by the appellants about the<\/p>\n
delay in recording further statement of P.W.2 and the reasons therefor.<\/p>\n
The law is well settled that the delay in recording the statement of an eye<\/p>\n
witness is not detrimental when his non-availability is justified. It is the<\/p>\n
prosecution stand that P.W.2 was undergoing treatment at Patna and for<\/p>\n
that reason he could not be examined by the Investigating Officer at the<\/p>\n
earliest.   Admittedly P.Ws 1,2, 3,4 and 6 have no enmity with the<\/p>\n
appellants. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that investigator was<\/p>\n
deliberately making time with a view to decide about the shape to be given<\/p>\n
to the case and eye witnesses to be introduced.\n<\/p>\n
              In AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2423 (Ishwar Singh vrs State of<\/p>\n
U.P.) it has been observed:\n<\/p>\n
               “5. Mr. Frank Anthony appearing for appellant
\n        Ishwar Singh submitted that in affirming the judgment of
\n        the trial Court, the High Court also overlooked certain
\n        important aspects of the case that the Sessions Judge had
\n        failed to consider. He pointed out that the F.I.R. which is
\n        stated to have been lodged at 9.05 A.M. on February 14,
\n        1973 was sent out from the police station the next day,
\n        February 15; the time when it was dispatched is not
\n        stated, but it appears from the record that the Magistrate
\n        received it on the morning of February 16. The court of
\n        the Magistrate was nearby, which makes it difficult to
\n        understand why the report was sent to him about two
\n        days after its stated hour of receipt at the police station.
\n        Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 as
\n        well as of 1973 both require the first information report
\n        to be sent “forthwith” to the Magistrate competent to
\n        take cognizance of the offence. No explanation is offered
\n        for this extraordinary delay in sending the report to the
\n        Magistrate. This is a circumstance which provides a
\n                             17<\/span><\/p>\n
       legitimate basis for suspecting, as Mr. Anthony
\n       suggested, that the first information report was recorded
\n       much later than the stated date and hour affording
\n       sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce
\n       improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted
\n       version of the occurrence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The same view has been expressed in 1994 supplement (2)<\/p>\n
SCC 372 (Arjun Malik and ors vrs State of Bihar). There cannot be any<\/p>\n
dispute that the FIR     must be dispatched “forthwith” to the nearest<\/p>\n
Magistrate. The word “forthwith” occurring in section 157 Cr.P.C. means<\/p>\n
promptly and without any undue delay but it all depends on the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of each case when the circumstances of delay may lead to<\/p>\n
serious consequences. In the present case as mentioned above the FIR<\/p>\n
was lodged promptly. The investigation started promptly on its basis. The<\/p>\n
fact that there is delay of one day in despatching the FIR to the concerned<\/p>\n
Magistrate is immaterial.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             In the facts and circumstances the delay in receipt of FIR<\/p>\n
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 5.8.2005 would not make the<\/p>\n
investigation tainted one nor could the FIR be regarded as ante timed and<\/p>\n
antedated.\n<\/p>\n
18.           It has further been contended on behalf of the appellants that<\/p>\n
on the basis of evidence on record it cannot be concluded that firing was<\/p>\n
made from A.K.47 rifle. From the evidence of P.W.5 it appears that he<\/p>\n
had found eight gun short injury on the person of deceased Anil Kumar<\/p>\n
Jha (4 of entry and 4 of exit). P.W.2 Sureshwar Jha had three injuries<\/p>\n
(two of entry and one of exit) as per evidence of P.W.9. The blackening<\/p>\n
of the wounds on the person of P.W.2 indicate that the firing was from a<\/p>\n
close range. The fact that the deceased and the injured sustained fire arm
\n                          18<\/span><\/p>\n
injuries in quick succession is sufficient to show that high velocity rifle<\/p>\n
like A.K.47 was used in the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
19.            Learned counsel then contended that charge of conspiracy<\/p>\n
has not been established by the prosecution. In this connection he<\/p>\n
contended that there is no evidence that the mobile from which call for<\/p>\n
ransom was made belonged to Mohan Singh. He contended that there is<\/p>\n
also no evidence on the record to show that Mohan Singh had asked<\/p>\n
deceased Anil Kumar Jha or his brother Vikas Kumar Jha to hand over the<\/p>\n
ransom amount to Laxmi Singh.        It is admitted position that during<\/p>\n
investigation the police did not find out in whose name the S.I.M. of<\/p>\n
alleged mobile was standing. However, P.W.8 during investigation found<\/p>\n
that mobile no. 93835273765 was of Mohan Singh and mobile no.<\/p>\n
9431428630 was of Laxmi Singh. The landline telephone of the deceased<\/p>\n
was 06252-239727. P.W.8 has stated that on 25.7.2005 at 11.21.50 hours<\/p>\n
for 54 seconds a conversation was made from mobile no. 9835273765 to<\/p>\n
telephone no.06252-239727. According to this witness, four calls were<\/p>\n
made on 23.7.2005 between mobile no. 9835273765 and 9431428630 vide<\/p>\n
exhibit-9. Then on 3.8.2005 talk was made from mobile of Laxmi Singh to<\/p>\n
mobile of Mohan Singh and vice versa vide exhibit-10. It appears from the<\/p>\n
evidence of P.Ws 2 and 4 that both the appellants were known to them<\/p>\n
from before. Known persons can be recognized by their gait and voice. It<\/p>\n
is true that identification by “voice and gait” is risky but where the<\/p>\n
accused\/caller was known to the identifier, it can be relied upon. Direct<\/p>\n
evidence of conspiracy is almost an impossibility. In a rare case there is<\/p>\n
evidence of the place where the conspiracy was entered into. The case of
\n                           19<\/span><\/p>\n
conspiracy therefore, has to be inferred from the conduct of the parties.<\/p>\n
From the evidence of P.W.4 and exhibits-9 and 10 itt appears that<\/p>\n
conversation was made between Mohan Singh and Vikas             Kumar Jha on<\/p>\n
telephone line. Then it appears from exhibits-9 and 10 that the talk was<\/p>\n
also made between the two appellants. From the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2<\/p>\n
it is apparent that on 3.8.2005 appellant Laxmi Singh and other two<\/p>\n
persons came to the place of occurrence and participated in the same.<\/p>\n
Shooting was done by Laxmi Singh. It is also clear from their evidence<\/p>\n
that they were acquainted with Mohan Singh and Laxman singh. I find<\/p>\n
substance in the finding recorded by the trial court that it is not material in<\/p>\n
whose name the SIM of mobile used by Mohan Singh was standing. It is<\/p>\n
important who had demanded ransom money. The question is why a<\/p>\n
criminal will use his own mobile to demand ransom. The evidence of<\/p>\n
P.Ws 2 and 4 is unblemished and their evidence cannot be discarded.<\/p>\n
P.W.4 had identified the voice of Mohan Singh. From the acts and conduct<\/p>\n
of the two appellants an agreement could be inferred, Mohan Singh was<\/p>\n
performing one part of the act and the other appellant Laxmi Singh<\/p>\n
completed the other part of the same object. Thus a case of conspiracy is<\/p>\n
made out.\n<\/p>\n
20.            I have examined the evidence of P.Ws 1,2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 and<\/p>\n
there is nothing to show that they have deposed falsely. It is true that P.Ws<\/p>\n
2,3 and 4 are related to each other but it has to be kept in mind that<\/p>\n
ordinarily a close relation would be last to screen the real culprit and<\/p>\n
falsely implicate innocent persons. The evidence of these four witnesses is<\/p>\n
cogent and point to the guilt of the appellants. P.Ws 1 and 2 were present
\n                          20<\/span><\/p>\n
at the place where the murder of Anil Jha was committed. P.W.2 in the<\/p>\n
said occurrence sustained fire arm injuries from the firing made by A.K.47<\/p>\n
rifle. Appellant Laxmi Singh was seen by them firing indiscriminately<\/p>\n
from the said rifle. The presence of P.Ws 1 and 2 at the place of<\/p>\n
occurrence cannot be doubted. The evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 4 is<\/p>\n
supported by the FIR which was recorded on the same day just 2 to 3<\/p>\n
hours after the occurrence. The witnesses examined in the case<\/p>\n
corroborate each other in material particulars and the manner in which this<\/p>\n
incident took place in a pre-planned manner. The court below on detailed<\/p>\n
scrutiny of statement of the witnesses did not find any infirmity in the<\/p>\n
evidence. After careful esxamination I also find that the prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses fully prove the prosecution case against the appellants.<\/p>\n
21.         Now the next question is what punishment should be imposed<\/p>\n
on the appellants. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that<\/p>\n
the case does not fall within the category of “rarest of rare case” which<\/p>\n
would invite capital punishment. There is no previous conviction against<\/p>\n
the appellant Laxmi Singh. At the time of occurrence he was just 32 years<\/p>\n
of age. There is also no evidence on the record to suggest that Laxmi<\/p>\n
Singh would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful co-<\/p>\n
existence of the society. There is no reason to believe that he cannot be<\/p>\n
reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue criminal acts of<\/p>\n
violence as would constitute a continued threat to the society. I am of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the appellant Laxmi Singh must be given a chance to repent<\/p>\n
that what he has done is neither approved by law nor by the society. In<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing
\n                                             21<\/span><\/p>\n
                  him to rigorous imprisonment for life would meet the ends of justice.<\/p>\n
                  Therefore, the death sentence awarded to Laxmi Singh is altered to that of<\/p>\n
                  rigorous imprisonment for life. His conviction and sentence passed by the<\/p>\n
                  court below under section 307 IPC is maintained.\n<\/p>\n
                  22.            So far as appellant Mohan Singh is concerned, he has rightly<\/p>\n
                  been convicted and sentenced under section 120 B of the IPC to undergo<\/p>\n
                  rigorous imprisonment for life. No modification is required in his<\/p>\n
                  sentence.    His conviction and sentence under section 120B IPC is,<\/p>\n
                  therefore, upheld.\n<\/p>\n
                  23.              With the above modification in the sentence of appellant<\/p>\n
                  Laxmi Singh, the two appeals are dismissed. The death sentence is<\/p>\n
                  answered in negative.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                                        (Madhavendra Saran,J.)\n\n\n\n\n(Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)        I agree.\n\n\n                                                          (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)\n\n\n\nPATNA HIGH COURT\nDated 3 September 2008\nAI\/NAFR\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2008 Author: Madhavendra Saran Death Reference no. 8 of 2007 With Cr.Appeal no. 1152 of 2007 With Cr.Appeal no. 1338 of 2007 ===== IN DEATH REFERENC No.8 OF 2007 STATE OF BIHAR————————–(Appellant) Versus LAXMI NARAYAN SINGH @ LAXMI SINGH——(Respondent) with IN CRIMINAL APPEAL […]<\/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-61828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-24T04:47:59+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=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-24T04:47:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5908,\"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\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-24T04:47:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-24T04:47:59+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":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-24T04:47:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008"},"wordCount":5908,"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\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008","name":"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-24T04:47:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-3-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohan Singh vs State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/61828","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=61828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}