LexBACHAN SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008] 13 S.C.R. 320
~ '~
A
BACHAN SINGH & ANR.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1176 of 2004 etc.)
B
SEPTEMBER 11, 2008
[S.B. SINHA AND .HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 I Arms Act, 1959 - ss. 302, 302 rlw
s.149, 148 and 147 Is. 27 - Prosecution under- Conviction
c by trial court of nine of the thirteen accused - High Court
acquitting one while upholding conviction of the rest -
On
Appeal, held: The prosecution witness proved that there was
free fight between both the parties resulting in deaths from
both parties -
Hence both the groups must share equal
D
responsibility for the incident - Two accused who gave fatal
injuries are liable to be convicted u/s 302 /PC and s. 27 of
,..
Arms Act- Other accused are entitled to be acquitted - Benefit
of acquittal will also flow to the accused who have not preferred
appeal to Supreme Court.
E
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 172 (2) - Court
looking into Case Diary during trial - For corroboration for
prosecution evidence - Propriety of - Held: The court has
power to call Case Diary and use the same not as evidence
but to aid it in inquiry or trial - In the facts of the case, calling
of Case Diary was justified - Even otherwise its use did not
F cause any prejudice to the accused.
Thirteen accused including the appellants were tried
u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 325 IPC and u/s. 25 (a) of
Arms Act, 1959. Trial Court relying on the evidence of
G
PWs. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 convicted nine of the accused u/s
302/149 IPC. High Court acquitted one of the nine
accused, of all the charges, while confirming the
conviction of other eight accused. Hence the present
"
appeals and SLP. Accused 'C', 'Ba' and 'Br' did not prefer
any appeal to this Court.
H
320
BACHAN SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF BIHAR
321
·.
~ it-
Disposing of the appeals and the SLP, the Court
A
HELD: 1.1 The trial Court has drawn an inference
that both sides had collected their relatives and
supporters from several villages before the alleged
occurrence and clashed with each other. It is apparent
B
....
from the evidence of PW5 that a free fight between the
parties had taken place during the course of which several
shots had been fired resulting in three deaths from both
groups. The stand taken by her has been supported on
material points by the other prosecution witnesses. Both
groups must share equal responsibility for this incident. c
[Paras 8, 9 and 10] [328~8,C,F,G 329-A]
1.2 Accused 'C' who has beer. attributed the gun
shot injury and accused 'J' who had likewise given a fatal
injury must be held liable for offences punishable under D
"
Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The rest
of the appellant/petitioner are acquitted of all the charges.
The benefit of this judgment must also flow to the two
accused who have not filed any appeal in this Court.
Hence they are also entitled to acquittal. [Paras 10 and E
11] [329-A,B 330-G-H]
Raja Ram and Ors. vs. State of M.P 1994 (2) SCC 568;
Suresh Chaudhary etc. vs. State of Bihar 2003 (4) SCC 128;
Arokia Thomas vs. State of TN. 2006 (10) SCC 542- relied
on.
F
-~
2. A bare perusal of Section 172 {2) Cr.P.C. would
reveal that a criminal court can send for the police diaries
of a case under trial in such court, and may use such
diaries, not as evidence of the case, but to aid it in such
inquiry or trial. The facts of the case reveal that the 1.0.
G
could not be examined, as in the meanwhile he had
migrated to Pakistan and had died there and it is in this
)'
situation that the trial Judge feeling handicapped on
account of the non-examination of the 1.0., had a look
into the case diary as an additional factor to test the
H
.
~c
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008] 13 S.C.R.
A veracity of the witnesses. The prosecution witnesses had
been confronted with their previous statements and even
if it is assumed that the trial court was not justified in
looking into the case diary, it could not be said to be
prejudicial to the accused in the peculiar facts of the case.
B [Para 7) [325 H, 326 A-B, 327 D-E)
c
D
Queen Empress vs. Mannu 1897 ILR (19) Allahabad
390; Sakal Ahir and Ors. vs. Pa/akdhari Ahir AIR 1931 Patna
96; Habeeb Mohammad vs. State of Hyderabad 1954 SCR
475- distinguished.
1954 SCR 475
Case Law Refernce
Distinguished. Para 6
AIR 1931 Patna 96
Distinguished. Para 6
1897 ILR (19) Allahabad 390 Distinguished. Para 6
1994 (2) SCC 568
Relied on.
ParExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.