NAVAL KISHORE SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 344 · Decided: 04-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NA VAL KISHORE SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
AUGUST 4, 2004 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
S. 304-During an altercation one of the accused thrusting a spear 
C in abdomen of victim-Injury causing death of victim-Trial court convicted 
the two accused u!s 302 rlw s.34-High Court acquitted one of them and 
convicted the other u!s 304-Held, evidence of prosecution proves that 
appellant caused injury to deceased-Court not inclined to interfere with 
the conviction and sentence. 
D 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
s.J 13-Trial court examining the accused-Only three questions put 
to accused-Plea that there was serious error in not properly examining 
the accused-Held, Supreme Court deprecates the practice of putting 
together in a single question the entire evidence against the accused and 
E asking him to explain the same, as the accused may not be in a position 
to give a rational and intelligent explanation-Trial Judge should have 
kept in mind the importance of giving an opportunity to the accused to 
explain the adverse circumstances in the evidence-s. 313 examination is 
part of a fair trial and should not be done in slipshod manner-However, 
F as the accused did not raise the plea before the High Court that he was 
prejudiced by the way the s. 313 examination was conducted, the Court 
is not inclined to accept the plea at this stage. 
Rama Shanker Singh & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1962) SC 
G 1239; Bhalinder Singh alias Raju v. State of Punjab, AIR (1994) 1 SCC 
726; State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh & Ors., (1992) 3 SCC 700 
and Lallu Manjhi & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, [2003) 2 SCC 401, relied 
on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION·: Criminal Appeal No. 
H 1331 or2003. 
344 
N.K. SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 
345 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.2002 of the Patna High Court A 
in Cr!. A No. 589 of 1987. 
Upendra Mishra and Kanhaiya Priyadarshi for the Appellant. 
B.B. Singh and Kumar Rajesh Singh for the Respondent. 
B 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The sole appellant was tried along with six othu accused and the 
appellant and one another were found guilty by the Sessions Court for the 
offence for murder punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC. Both the C 
convicted persons filed appeal and the High Court acquitted one of them 
and present appellant was found guilty under Section 304 and was 
sentenced to undergo seven years imprisonment. 
The incident happened on 17.11.1974. Deceased Baijnath Singh son 
of PW-I Lal Deo Singh was engaged in cutting leaves of banana. The case D 
of the prosecution is that the appellant along with other co-accused cmee 
to the place of incident and the present appellant was armed with spear. 
The accused persons asked Baijnath why be was putting banana leaves near 
the house of the accused. The deceased gave some reply. The further case 
of the . prosecution is that the present appellant thrust the spear in the E 
abdomen of the deceased Baijnath Singh. Meanwhile, PW-I, PW-2 and 
others came to the scene of occurrence. PW-2 also was attacked by one 
of the accused. The injured Baijnath was taken to the hospital where he 
succumbed to the injuries. PW-I later gave information to the police and 
the case was registered against the accused. 
F 
In the Sessions Court, 16 witnesses were examined. PWs I, 2, 3 and 
8 are the eye-witnesses. PW-I, the father of the deceased deposed that 
when his son was cutting banana leaves, the accused came there and picked 
up a quarrel with him and he saw the present appellant thrusting the spear 
on the abdomen of this son. PW-2, brother of PW-I also came to the place G 
of incident and saw the appellant causing injury to the deceased. 
The counsel for the appellant submitted that there are series of 
contradictions between the evidence of PW-I and PW-2. We do not think 
·that the contradictions pointed out by the appellant's counsel are sufficient H 
346 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A to disbelieve their evidence, especially, when the presence of these two 
witnesses cannot be doubted. PW-2 sustained injury on his face and PW-
3 and PW-8 also were in the house and came to the place of incident at 
the time of occurrence. PW-3 deposed that she could see that her son 
Baijnath in the plantation grove and doing work and there is evidence of 
B the prosecution to prove that the present appellant caused injury to 
deceased Baijnath. 
Counsel for the appellant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.