SAJJAN SHARMA versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 07-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 1 S.C.R. 629 
SAJJAN SHARMA 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
. (Criminal Appeal No. 1283 of 2010) 
JANUARY 7, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860- s.302- Murder- Unlawful assembly 
carrying fire-arms caused the death of informant's uncle -
Appellant's father and brother were seen as members of the 
C 
unlawful assembly and were duly named in the Fard-e-beyanl 
FIR - Weapons carried by them were also identified and 
expressly mentioned in the Fard-e-beyan - Thol/Jgh appellant 
was not identified as one of the accused at the time · of the 
commission of the offence, he was later named, among the o 
accused - Conviction of accused-appellant - Challenge to -
Dispute as to whether appellant was one of the accused taking 
part in the commission of the offence - Held: The informant 
did not name the appellant as one of the accused - The 
appellant was not named in the FIR - Had the appellant been 
E 
actually present at the place of occurrence, there is no reason 
why his name along with his father and brother, should not •.. , 
have figured in the FIR - In the circumstances, it will not be 
wholly safe to maintain the conviction of the appellant under 
s.302 IPC and applying the rule of_caution, he must.be given 
F 
the benefit of doubt - Conviction of appellant set aside. 
.. 
Criminal Trial - Framing of charges and examination of 
accused under s.313 CrPC in the State of Bihar- Patna High 
Court asked to take note of the neglectful way in which some 
of the Courts in the State appear to be conducting trials of G 
serious offences and take appropriate corrective steps - Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.313. 
According to the prosecution, In view of old enmity, 
an unlawful assembly carrying fire-arms caused the 
H 
629 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 
A death of PW4's uncle. The prosecution case Is based on 
the Fard-e-beyan of PW4.· 
The police subml1tted chargesheet against seven 
accused persons of whom five (Including the appellant's 
B father and brother) were named In the Fard-e-beyan/FIR 
whlle the other two accused (Including the appellant) 
were not so named In the Fard·e·beyan/FIR. In the 
charge-sheet three accused were shown as absconders 
·~ 
and the rest were in custody. Later one more accused 
·c was apprehended and he was also put on trial along with 
the accused who were In custody. The case of the two 
accused . who remained absconding was separated and 
. the other five accused were put on trlal. Later on, the 
. appellant's father died and in so far as he was concerned, 
the proceedings abated. The trlal continued In respect of 
D the four accused, including the appellant. The trial court 
y 
finally convicted all the four accused under section 302 
IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them · 
to rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC 
and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year under section 27 
E of the 'Arms Act. One accused died after the judgment of 
the t.rlal court. The rest three accused, Including the 
appeftant and his brother preferred appeals before the 
High Court. The appeals were dismissed. 
F 
Against the judgment of the High Court, the appellant 
and his brother jointly filed SLP before this Court. Tl1e 
third convict did not flle any further appeal against t~e 
judgment of the High Court. The SLP Insofar as the 
appellant's brother was dismissed while the appellant was 
G 
granted leave to appeal. 
· 
{ 
)'-' 
Allowing. the appea1, the Court 
liELD: 1. Curiously, the trlaJ court ~harged all the five 
.accused (before the appellant's father died) only under 
H 
..... 
aect,lon 302 IPC, without the aid of either section 149 or 
.aectl~n ~4 of IPC. Equa,lly Inexplicably, the trial court did 
· SAJJAN SHARMA v. STATE OF BIHAR 
631 
not charge the accused under section 148 IPC. Apart from A 
-,! --"" 
section 302 IPC all the accused were charged under 
section 27 of the Arms Act; one accused was addltlonally 
charged under section 379 of the Penal Code for taking 
away the rlfle of the deceased. [Para 12] [638-F-G] 
2.1. The charge framed by the· trial court was. hlghly B 
flawed. The appellant was examined by the court under 
section 313 of CrPC. This examination too Is highly 
-~ 
unsatisfactory and sketchy. [Paras 13, 14] [638-H; 639-C-
D] 
c 
2.2. This is not an Isolated case but it is almost a 
stereotype. In criminal trials In Bihar no proper attention 
is paid to the framing of charges and the examination of 
the accused und

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