LexBRIJLALA PD. SINHA ETC . versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. -... BRIJLALA PD. SINHA ETC . A v. STATEOt BIHAR JULY 13, 1998 [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND G.8. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B Penal Code. 1860 : Sections 302/34 Circumstantial Evidence· T/iree innocent persons killed by police officials Incident tried to be shown as encounter -Case registered -On C circumstantial evidence, accused convicted under Section 302134 and sentenced to death-On appeal, conviction upheld by the High Court - However, death sentence of three accused commuted to life imprisonment On appeal, Held : Evidence of PWs 7 and 8 was believed by the courts below -Evidence of PW 7 was corroborated by that of PW 8 The fact of the D accused leaving for the place of occurrence and returning back with dead bodies with bullet injuries clearly established-Vehicle of the deceased persom had bullet marks whereas that of the accused did not have any Fact of accused implanting country made pistols in the vehicle of deceased persons also established -No explanation given as to the killing-Chain of circumstances was complete to hold the accused guilty--Evidence Act, I 872. E S.34 -Common Intention All the other accused except one went together to the place of occurrence· Initially went to chase the vehicle· -On finding the van stationary fired indiscriminate/y--Killed the deceased persons-Held Intention to kill the deceased persons developed at the very place of occurrence Death occurred due to the shots from 303 rifles of the F Constables --One of the accused left for the place of occurrence half an hour later No proof of his revolver being used-Only evidence was the non- explanation of as regards use 9 cartridges supplied to him a year before- Evidence of driver who took him to the place of occurrence not taken· Hence it cannot be said that he shared common intention. Sentence Session> Court awarde<I death sentence to all the six accused High Court commuted the death sentence of only three accused Constables to life imprisonment· Held High Court swayed away by the fact of trial being a sensational one though it was not a rarest of rare cases. G Indian Evidence Act, 1872 : Sections J J. -Alibi- Accused pleaded alibi H 529 530 SUPREME CO CRT REPORTS I 1998] 3 S.C.R. A on the ground of his being transferred tu Uaya about six months ag<r Held Presence of the ae'cused at the pu/ice station of the place of occurrence stated by more than nine P Ws ,Vo attempt was made to call ji.>r and pruve the station diary of the police station to prove his presence there Hence nothing on record to establish his plea of alibi. B Appellant DN was the Station House Officer of the Barachatti Police Station. On the day of occurrence, early in the morning, appellant JK informed DN that a Maruti Van had been speeding up with criminals who were also firing indiscriminately. The appellant police officials, immediately, left the police station to chase the said van. When the van stopped on account C of a traffic jam, the chasing appellants, after coming near the van, fired indiscriminately as a result of which three persons amongst the occupants of the van were killed. Their dead bodies were taken to the police station where DN made entry in the Station Diary stating therein that as the occupants of the van started firing at the police personnel, they also resorted to firing and in the course of occurrence three persons from the van were D found dead. Four days thereafter a written report was received by the Superintendent of Police, Ga ya alleging therein that police officials have committed murder of three persons as their demand for one lakh rupees could not be fulfilled; on the basis of the complaint Case No. 148/93 was registered. The Sessions Judge, Relying upon the circumstantial evidence E held the appellants/accused guilty under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to capital punishment. On appeal and reference for confirmation of death sentence, the High Court, upheld the conviction and the death sentence in respect of accused persons namely DN, BP and VF but commuted the death sentence of the F other three accused Constables to life imprisonment as they were subordinate policemen who were acting under the direction of their superiors. In appeals to this Court, it was contended that in the absence of any direct evidence as to the occurrence and the prosecution having relied on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstance proved cannot be held to be of G conc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.