LexRAJENDER SINGH AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- - RAJENDER SINGH AND ORS. A v. THE STATE OF BIHAR APRIL 7, 2000 [G.B. PATTANAIK, R.P. SETHI AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] B Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Section 302-Conviction under-No unlawful assembly or any common object to cause assault or murder of deceased-Hence conviction altered to one u/s. 302. Sections 302134 & 324-Conviction under-Of one of the appellants- The circumstances under which appellant has been ascribed to have given a c blow on the deceased, it cannot be held that he also shared the common intention with other accused-Therefore conviction u/s. 302134 cannot be D sustained-Hence, convicted Ills. 324. Section 300, Exception 4-Held, in the facts of the case, not proved. Section 34-Common intention and Similar intention-Distinction be- tween-If the distinction is overlooked, it may lead to miscarriage o.f justice. E Criminal Trial : Injury on accused-Non-explanation-Consequence of-Though pros- ecution not obliged to explain each and every injury on the accused-But failure to explain grievous injury creates suspicion on the ground that true F version is concealed by prosecution-In the present case prosecution witnesses held to be trustworthy-Non-explanation of grievous injury on accused- Whether would render the prosecution case untrustworthy-Held, No. Contradictory Statement-Reliability on-Contradiction informer state- ment and the statement during trial-Former statement not legally proved- And not confronted during trial-Held, prosecution case not fatal c;n the ground of contradiction. G Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 145-Contradiction in statement of witness-Between former statement and the statement during trial-Fonner H I 1073 A B 1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS c200012·s.c.R. statement not confronted by defence during trial-:Held, the provision has not been complied with. Nine accused were alleged to have committed murder of the de- ceased and having caused injury. to others including the eyewitnesses. Appellants/Accused 'R' and 'P' were charged under sections 302 and 307 of IPC. Appellant/Accused 'T' was charged under Section 302. All the nine accused including the appl'.llants were charged under Section 302/149 of IPC. There were also charges u/s s.148, 147, 324 & 323 of IPC. Prosecution case is that when PW 8, the informant was ploughing C his field, accused came to his field and asked him to stop ploughing, when the informant protested he was assaulted by A-1 & A-2 and the deceased was assaulted first by A-1 and thereafter by all the accused. The injured witnesses and the accused were medically examined. Grievous injury was found on the body of the accused 'R'. Statement of D the informant/PW-8 was recorded by the Magistrate in the hospital. There were 4 ey~witnesses to the incident. E The defence case was that the prosecution party was the aggressor, as the iitcident took place on plot No. 4514, belonging to the accused, and thus tht; accused party was entitled to right of private defem:e of property and person. I During trial, the statement of the informant (PW 8) disclosed that when he was on his plot No. 4513 appellants 'R' and 'P' & accused 'RD' reached there. There was altercation between the accused party and the F informant party. In the course of the occurrence appellant 'R' sustained grievous injury. The deceased was armed with farsa, while the accused 'RD', 'S', 'K', 'RS' were armed with lathis and when 'R' gave lalkara, they assaulted PW 8. As per the evidence of PW-2 appellant 'T' had not given any blow to the deceased. PWs 4 & 8 stated that 'T' had given blow G H on the leg of the deceased, while PW-7 said that all the three appellants had assaulted the deceased but he did not ascribe any particular role to any of them. The Magistrate who had recorded the statement of PW-8, was also examined during trial. In his cross-examination, he had categori- cally admitted that the statement Exbt. B did not bear the signature and seal either of his office or of the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In his examination-in-chief also he did not state as to who identified PW-8 in < - ·~-- > r---- _,~ RAJENDRA SINGH v. STATE 1075 the hospital. Trial court concluded that the occurrence took place on plot No. 4513 which admittedly belonged to the informant, therefore plea of self defence was not acceptable, and on the basis of the ocular evidence of the four eye witnesses and the evidence of the doctor, co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.