LexPARSURAM PANDEY AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PARSURAM PANDEY AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR OCTOBER 14, 2004 [P. VENKA TARAMA REDDI AND PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860-Sec. 302, 307, 148, 149, 324, 34-Arms Act- Sec.27-Assault by appellant-Causing death of one, injury to others- C Common object or intention was not for committing murder-No particular fire arm injuries-Held, all accused did not share intention to commit murder-Intention only to cause injuries to others-Accused acquitted of charges under section 302 read with 149 but are convicted under section 324 read with 34. Code of Criminal Procedure-Sec. 313-Recording of statement of accused-Held, no prejudice caused to the accused on account of irregular, imperfect statement recorded by the Court. D The accused/appellants were tried for the offence alongwith two other accused persons namely, Dharam Raj Pandey and Shradha Ram. Raghunath E Pandey-accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and awarded sentence of life imprisonment, etc. The accused/appellants Parshuram Pandey, Bishram Pandey and Somaru Pandey together with the other accused (non-appellants) have been convicted and sentenced to 5 years RI under Section 307 for attempting to murder Rajendra Dusadh, Hriday Shankar Rai, Shampu Kumar Singh, Mathura Singh and Rajesh Singh and F one year RI under Section 27 of the Arms Act. PW-6, Birender Pandey and Somaru Pandey lodged an FIR in 1989 informing that he along with PW5 and Kanhaiya Pandey (deceased) were standing in their field, when there was a scuffle due to grazing of the buffalo in his field, by the accused. The Trial Court and High Court while relying on the statement of PW3, PW4, PW5, G PW6 convicted the accused persons. Defence plea of accidental firing was rejected. Before this Court Appellant contended that on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, PW3 and PW4 could not be held to have been present 475 II 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A at the place at the time of the occurrence, that PW3 and PW4 claim to be the eye-witnesses but in the FIR lodged by PW6 at the police station it is revealed that they have reached the place of occurrence after hearing the noise, that as per the FIR these two witnesses have reached the spot after hearing the fire shots and the noise from the family members, that PW-5 in his cross- B examination has admitted that after the accused fled away, his family members came, that PW-3 and PW-4 reached the spot after the accused persons had already fled away, that PW 3 admitted that he has followed the accused persons after 2-4 minutes of hearing the 'hulla', that the statement clearly indicates that he has not immediately followed the accused persons but left his residence after 2-4 minutes of hearing the hulla, that the statement of this witnesses C clearly shows that he reached the place of incident after the incident was over, that the deposition of PW4 and PW3 read with the statement of PWS and the incident recorded in the FIR leaves no manner of doubt that these witnesses were not the eye-witnesses and have not seen the incident happening, that the fact situation alleged by the prosecution of the commencing of the incident does not inspire confidence in the circumstances of the case, that it was D impossible for the accused to put his buffalo in the field for grazing when the PWs were standing in the field, that the investigating officer did not find any foot marks of the animal in the field and therefore the whole genesis of the incident is false and therefore the prosecution could not be believed, and they are wrongly convicted under Section 307 for causing injury to the villagers E and their further convict.ion under Section 27 of the Arms Act is not in conformity with the evidence led by the prosecution, and that the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons have been recorded in ·~ most cursory, casual and perfunctory manner by the Sessions court, that this is a normal practice followed in the court in the state, that the manner in which the trial court recorded the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of F the accused persons, is not in accordance with law and therefore accused- appellants are entitled for the benefit as they have not been provided with sufficient opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against them. G Allowing the Appeals party, the Court HELD: 1. By virtue of Secti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.