LexCHANDRA SHEKHAR BIND AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
CHANDRA SHEKHAR BIND AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
OCTOBER 9, 2001
B
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]
Penal Code; 1860-Sections 302 and 302 read with 149-Conviction
under-Prosecution case supported by 2 eyewitnesses-All the accused except
3 ident{fied by both the eyewitnesses-Convicted by Court.1: below-On appeal
C
conviction of 3 accused set aside giving benefit of doubt-Convicrion of other
accused upheld.
D
E
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Specicil leave-New Plea-,-
Mixed question of law and facts mu/ not pure question of law-Held, cannot be
permitted to be raised .for the .first time in Supreme Court.
Eighteen accused including the appellants were charge-sheeted under
section 302 and 302 read with sectiOn 149'!.P.C. PW_s 1, 4, 5 and 6 were the
eye witnesses to the incident. PW 5 had lodged FIR. In trial, PW5 who had
identified all the accused except accused No. 12 and PW 6 who had id_entified
all the accused except accused Nos. 9_ and 10 supported the prosecution
case. PWs 1 and 4_ on whom injury w~s proved turned hostile as they
refused to id~ntify the accused but confirmed that the incident had taken
place. Defence examined two witnesses to prove alibi and DWs 3, 4 and 5
stated that after the incident. when they had gone to t~e house of the
deceased, PWs S and 6 had not _named any o~ the accused. However, this
F
was not pu:t to PWs S and 6 in their cross-examination.
Trial Court relying on the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 and rejecting the
evidence of defence, convicted the accused, High Court ·confirmed the
conviction.
G
In appeal to this_ Court appellants for the first time sought to make
submission on the basis of Juvenile Justice (Care and Proteetion of Children)·
Act, Jooo:
;--
' Dismissing the appeals, the Court
H
HELD : 1. The evidence of DWs 3, 4 and' S has rightly not been
658
.....
...
CHANDRASEKHAR BIND v. STATE
659
accepted by the trial court and the High Court. PWs 5 and 6 are trustworthy
A
and reliable witnesses. Their presence on the scene could not be denied.
·There is absolutely no reason why they should falsely implicate the accused.
All the accused were known to these witnesses and, therefore, they could
identify the accused. [661-D; E; F]
Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR (1965) SC 202 and Binay Kumar Singh v.
State of Bihar, [1997] 1 SCC 283, referred to.
2. PWs 1 and 4 were injured witnesses and their injuries had been
proved. PW4 ~as also the informant who had lodged the first information
report. Though PWs 1 and 4 turned hostile and refused to identify any
person, they however confirmed that the incident had taken place. PWS
has not identified.accused No. 12 and PW 6 has not identified accused Nos.
9and10. However, PWs 5 and 6 have both identified all the other accused.
Considering the large number of people involved, it would be prudent in
. this case to adopt the two witness theory. On the basis of this two witness
theory, benefit of doubt would have to be and is given to accused Nos. 9, 10
and 12 inasmuch as more than one witness has not identified them.
[662-D; G; 662-E-G]
3. The Court cannot permit to take up point regarding Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It has not been urged
before the trial court that any of the accused was a juvenile. No such point
had been taken before the High Court. No such point has been taken in the
S.bP filed before this Court. This is not a pure question of law which can be
taken up for the first time in this Court. It is mixed question of law and
fact. [663-A; 662-H]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 337-
338 of 1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.1.98 of the Patna High Court in
Crl. A. No. 407 of 1991 with Cr!. A. No. 433 of 1991.
WITH
Crl. A. No. 339 of 1999 and Cr!. A. No. 1366 of 1999.
B
c
D
E
F
.G
P.S. Mishra and H.L. ·Agrawal, Rakesh Khanna R.P. Singh, Chandra
Shekhar, Vishnu Sharma, Upendra Mishra, Anil Kumar Gupta-II (A.C.)
H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. (2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
Jayai;it Bhushan (A.C.) Ms. Sunita R. Singh and B.E. Singh for the appearing
parties.
The.Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.N. VARIAVA, J. These Appeals are against lhe Judgment dated 9th
B
January, 1998 by which the High Court has dismissed the Criminal Appeals
filed by the Appellants herein.
c
D
E
F
G
Briefly stat~d the facts are as follows :
;
According to the prosecution, on 3rd June, 1989 Tungnath MistriExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.