LexBEHARI PRASAD ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
A
B
c
D
E
BEHAR! PRASAD ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
JANUARY 9, 1996
[G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
flidian Penal Code :
Ss. 3021199, 302134, 148,323--Murder-Trial--Accused convicted and
sentenced to imprisonment .for l(fe--Conviction challenged as based on evi-
dence of partisan witnesses and failure of prosecution to examine Investigating
O.fficer--Held, incident taking place near residential house and shop belong-
ing to deceased, presence n.f close relations of deceased at the place o.f occur-.
rence could not be said to be unususal--Non-examination of Investigating
O.fficer per se would not vitiate a criniinal trial-A case of prejudice likely to
be su.{fered by accused must depend on .facts o.f each case.
The four accused-appellants, along with father· of accused 2 and 4
were charged for various offences punishable under ss. 302/I49, 302, 34,
I48, I47, 323 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case was
that there was a dispute between the father of complainant (PW-I) on the
hand and accused 2 and 4, their father and their uncle, accused 3 on the
other, with regard to some ancestral property. Accused· I also had dispute
with the father of complainant (PW-I) with regard to tenancy of a shop.
The eviction suit filed against accused-I was decreed in terms of compro-'
mise in favour of the landlords, the father of PW.I, and accused I gave an
F
undertaking before the court to vacate the premises on a particular date.
G
On the date of incident, when the court officials, along with a lawyer, came
to deliver possession of the shop to the landlord, a third party raised a false
plea of tenancy and the father of accused 2 and 3 prevailed upon the Naib
Nazir and the Court officials as well as the lawyer left the place without
delivering possession of the shop to the complainant party. Immediately
thereafter, at the exhortation of accused. I, all the accused attacked the
complainant party. Accused I and the father of accused 2 and 4 assaulted
PW. 1 and PW.2 respectively with an iron rod and a hockey stick. Accused
3 and accused 4 caught hold of both the arms of the father of PW. I, and
accused 2 fired at him. The father of accused 2 gave a blow on the head of
H the victim with the iron-rod. The victim and the two injured, namely PW.
262
,J
\.
•
BEHAR! PRASAD v. STATE
263
I and 2, were taken to the hospital where the victim succumbed to his A
injuries.
On the statement of PW. I, F.I.R. was drawn up and the police
commenced the investigation, which culminated in the trial of the five
accused. One of the accused, namely, the father of accused 2 and 4 died
during the pendency of the trial.
B
The trial Court convicted the accused-appellants of the offences
charged and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. The accused-
appellants filed the appeal before the High Court, which affirmed the
conviction and sentences awarded to the accused-appellants and dismissed
their appeals, Aggrieved, the accused-appellants filed the present appeals. C
On behalf of the appellants, besides pointing out certain contradic·
tions in the prosecution case and the statements of the prosecution wit-
nesses, it was contended that P. Ws. I to 4, being close relatives of the
deceased, were highly interested wiinesses and they were actuated by a
strong desire to ensure that the accused were roped in for the offence of
murder; though the incident took place in broad day light, no independent
and reliable witness was examined; there was no occasio\1 for the accused
to indulge in criminal activities as alleged inasmuch as the prosecution case
itself was that accused had succeeded in influencing the Naib Nazir about
the tenancy of a third party and the court official had left the place without
delivering possession of the said shop to the complainant party; that the
prosecution failed to examine the investigation officer and it was a serious
infirmity in so far as it deprived the accused of an opportunity to contradict
the prosecution witnesses and other material on record.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD : 1. The prosecution case has been proved by the eye wit-
nesses. Over the shop room, a long drawn battle was fought by the deceased
upto this court. Ultimately, the delivery of possession of the shop through
court was fixed on the date of incident. It was, therefore, quite natural that
D
E
F
the said eye witnesses being close relations of the deceaseExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.