NIRMAL SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 140 · Decided: 17-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
NIRMAL SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
ST ATE OF BIHAR 
NOVEMBER 17, 2004 
[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860/Arms Act, 1959-Section 302/Section 27-Prosecution 
under-Death caused by gun shot by one accused at the exhortation of 
another accused-Two other accused accompanying-Accused exhorting 
also armed with firearm-Prosecution case supported by eyewitnesses and 
medical evidence-Some discrepancies in the case-Conviction by Courts 
below of the accused who· shot and who exhorted-Acquittal of the other 
two accused-In appeal, held : Conviction of accused who shot is justified 
as the· case is supported by the version of eye-witnesses and medical 
D evidence-Contradictions cire not significant so as to doubt the prosecution 
case-However, in the facts of the case, appellant exhorting is acquitted 
by extending benefit of. doubt by way of abundant caution. 
E 
Appellants-accused alongwith 2 others were alleged to have caused 
death of one person. According to prosecution appellants-accused and 
one of the two accused, armed with country made pistol and one accused 
armed with lathi had gone to the house of" the deceased. Appellant-
accused 'N' had shot at him at the exhortation of appellant-accused 'R'. 
The relatives of the deceased were eyewitnesses to the incident. PW-11, 
uncle of the deceased went to the police station to lodge FIR but the same 
F could not be reported. Names of the accused were not mentioned either 
in the story narrated to the constable by PW-11 nor in the Inquest 
Report. Investigating Officer after arriving at the place of incident, 
recorded statement of PW-8 and sent it to Police Station for drawing 
up formal FIR. In report of Post Mortem Examination incised wound 
caused by sharp cutting weapon was found. Second Post Mortem 
G Examination was directed and the same was conducted by a Board of 
Doctors. The Board could not give any definite opinion about the injury 
and recommended detailed investigation. In the further post mortem 
examination in Department of Forensic Medicines and Toxicology, a 
bullet was found in the 5th Lumbar Vertebra of the dead body. Version 
H of the eyewitnesses was in consistence with the FIR. Trial Court relying 
140 
NIRMAL SINGH v. ST A TE 
141 
on the version of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence, convicted the A 
appellants-accused while acquitted the other two accused. High Court 
affirmed the order of the trial Court. 
In appeal to this Court appellants contended that non-mention o{ 
name of the accused in the earliest report by PW-11 to the constable at B 
Police Station indicated that PW-11 did not know the assailants; that 
Post Mortem Examination Report of the doctor who stated that injury 
was caused by sharp cutting weapon created serious doubt about the 
prosecution case; that prosecution had not examined any forensic expert 
to prove that the injury was caused by a bullet; that prosecution failed c 
to prove that the alleged place of incident was the real place as no blood 
stained earth was seized from that place; that as per the inquest report 
intestines were protruding and accordingly there must have been some 
bleeding; and that the case of appellant 'R' being more or less on the 
same footing as that of the acquitted accused could not have been 
convicted because the allegation of exhorting the other appellant to D 
shoot, though himself armed with a pistol is highly unlikely. 
Dismissing the appeal of appellant' N' and allowing that of appellant 
'R', the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Courts below have not erred in convicting the appellant 
'N' under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The medical 
evidence supports the case of the prosecution that the deceased suffeFed 
a fire-arm injury and the evidence which conclusively proved this fact 
was the recovery of a bullet from the body of the deceased, which had 
got embedded in the 5th Lumber Vertebra and therefore; could not be 
detected by the medical team in the hospital. The report of the Board 
of Doctors who conducted the Post Mortem Examination is not 
inconsistent with the Report of PW-9 who conducted the Post Mortem 
in the Department of Forensic Medicines and Toxicology. They in fact, 
supplement each other. [151-C; 149-D, E] 
1.2. The question as to whether the bullet was discharged from any 
of the weapons carried by the appellants is of no significance in the facts 
of the instant case since the weapons allegedly carried by the appellants 
were neither recovered

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.