LexPREM KUMAR AND ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
{
)
./
PREM KUMAR AND ANR.
A
v.
I
ST A TE OF BIHAR
MARCH 2, 1995
(DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.)
B
Indian Penal Code, /860: S.302-Murder-Motive-Relevancy of-
Held, motive alleged against accused, if fully established, is· a very relevant
and important aspect to highlight intention of accused and the approach to
be made in appreciating totality of circumstances including evidence disclosed: C
it provides a foundational materiql to connect the chain of circumstan-
ce~inding of Courts below that accused, due to enmity, committed murder.
of deceased intentionally is justified and their conviction is proper and unas-
sailable.
D
The appellants (accused nos. 1 and 2 before the trial court) and some
other persons were charged for offences under s.302 and s.307 I.P.C. The
prosecution case was that there was enmity . between the families of the
informant and the accused. Accused no. 1 was the son of accused no. 6 and
accused no. 2 was his nephew. Brother of accused no. 2 was alleged to have
been murdered by one of the members of the informant's family (the E
deceased in the present case). On 13.1.1983, when the murder case was still
pending, and the deceased accompapied by P.Ws 1, 2, and 8 and some other
persons was returning in a bus after attending the said case, the bus
stopped at a bus stop at about 6.30 P.M.; meanwhile accused nos. 1, 2 and
6 and some other persons reached there in a car and a jeep; on the p
instigation of accused no. 6, accused nos. 1 and 2, armed with rifles, went
inside the bus and fired at the deceased who died instantaneously; two
other co-passengers, P.Ws. 5 and 6, were also injured in the firing. On
receiving the information, the police reached the place of occurrence;
P.W.8 made a statement of occurrence to the police and on its basis the
case was registered. The Investigating Officer sent P.Ws. 5 and 6 for G
medical examination. He prepared inquest report of the dead body and
sent it for autopsy. The post-mortem report indicated that there were
injuries caused by firearm on the victim, which resulted in his death. The
accused surrendered before the Court and were arrested and charge-
sheeted. The trial culminated in conviction of accused nos. 1, 2 and 6. H
455
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 2 S.C.R.
A Accused nos. 1 & 2 were convicted under s.302 I.P.C. and were sentenced
to ifuprisonment for life. They were also convicted under s.307 l.P.C. and
'
/
were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Accused no. 6
was convicted under s.302 read with s.34 IPC and was sentenced to
imprisonment for life. All the three accused filed an appeal before the High
B Court, which set aside the conviction and sentence of accused no. 6 under
s.302 read with S.34 IPC and conviction and sentence of accused no. 1 &
2 under s.307 IPC. It, however, affirmed the conviction and sentence of
accused nos. 1 & .2 under s.302 IPC. Aggrieved, accused nos. 1 and 2 filed
the appeal by special leave.
C
It was contended for the appellants that PWs 1 to 8 were not really
D
eye-witnesses and they were not able to depose as to who fired the final
shot and when; there was inconsistency in the prosecution evidence, and
the statement in the FIR was not fully substantiated; and that it was not
clear whether the injuries to the deceased were caused by rifles or by guns.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. In a case when motive alleged against the accused is
fully established, it provides a foundational material to connect the chain
of circumstances, and affords a key or pointer, to scan the evidence in the
E case, in that perspective and as a satisfactory Circumstance of corrobora·
tion. It is . a very relevant and important aspect, (a) to highlight the
_ intention of the accused and (b) the approach to be made in appreciating
the totality of the circumstances, including the evidence disclosed in the
case. [ 463-G-H]
F
State of U.P. v. Moti Ram and Ors., [1990) SCC 389, referred to.
1.2. In the instant case, the finding of the courts below that accused
nos. 1 and 2, due to enmity had committed the murder of the deceased
intentionally by firing repeated shots at him from their respective rifles,
is justified and their conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
G is proper and unassailable. [469-B]
2.1. The FIR and the deposition of the eye witnesses PWs. 1, 2, S, and
8, clearly bring out the fact that accused nos. 1 andExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.