LexSURESH CHANDRA BAHRI ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SURESH CHANDRA BAHRI ETC. ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
JULY 13, 1994
(DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]
B
Indian Penal Code 1860, Ss.302, 201 r/w 120A-Husband and two
accomplices conspiring and committing murder of wife and two children--
Evidence of approver trustworthy and co"oborated in material particulars by
circumstantial and expert evidence-Held, proved beyond reasonable doubt C
that husband who master minded plan and co-accused hatched conspiracy
and in pursuance thereof committed murder and made efforts to screen the
offence
Indian Penal Code, S.120A-Criminal conspiracy-Husband and two
accomplices conspiring and killing wife and two children-Held, essential D
ingredient is agreement between conspirators to commit crime; not necessary
that each party to conspiracy must do some overt act.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.306( 4) (a )-Approver granted par-
don by CJM without recording statement-<:ase committed to Trial
Court-Thereafter records sent back to CJM for recording statement of ap-
E
prover-Whether provision mandatory and whether failure to comply vitiates
the trial-Held, provision mandatory but on facts trial not vitiaied.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.306(4)(b)-Approver in custody
at time of pardon-Later released on bail by High Court even before con-
p
clusion of trial-Whether mandatory provision violated-Held, no; release of
approver on bail in the circumstances not illegal.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.313--lncriminating circumstances
not put to the accused during examination-Held, does not vitiate trial unless
real prejudice caused to the accused.
G
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S27-Discovery of incriminating articles
pursuant to confessional statement of accused-Held, in the instant case
disclosure statement true and worthy of credence.
Indian Evidence Ac~ 1872, Ss.114 Illustration (b), S.133-Conviction H
483
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A for offence of murder on basis of approver evidenc~vidence on broad and
material particulars scrutinised-Held, approver's evidence trustworthy and
corroborated in material particular,· deserves credence.
Criminal trial-Sentencing-Death sentence-Accused killing wife in
extremely brutal gruesome diabolical and dastardly manner-Body truncated
B into two parts in devilish style evincing total depravity to gain control over
property-Further killing two chUdren in cold blooded manner making them
believe about being taken on a pleasure tri~odies thrown into river after
infliction of severe injuries-Held, rarest of rare case with no mitigating
circumstances; death sentence justified-Code of Criminal Procedure 1973,
C S.354(3).
D
E
F
Criminal trial-Sentencing-Co-accused assisting main accused in kill-
ings but no evidence about part played and manner in which he acted in the
killings-Held, extreme penalty not warranted,· death sentence commuted to
life imprisonment-Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, S.354(3).
Criminal trial-Circumstantial evidence-Facts and circumstances
must be established beyond reasonable doubt-Should not only be consistent
with guilt of accused but must be entirely incompatible with innocence of
accused.
Criminal trial-Corpus delec(;-{)iscovery of skull of deceased long
after occurrence-Identity established through forensic methods-Held, even
where dead body not recovered offence of murder could be established if there
is positive evidence to connect culprit.
Criminal trial-Test identification parade-Accused seen by witnesses
in court without previous identification parade-Held, witnesses had seen
accused continuously for several days and recognised him before they made
their statements in Court; test identification parade not necessary-Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, S.9.
G
Constitution of India, Article 13&-Trial Court and High Court after
giving concurrent finding of guilt of accused-Held, finding fully supported by
evidence on record; does not call for inteiference.
Accused SB was married to deceased U and bad two children R and
S. The relations between SB and U were strained and difference arose
H
between them over a house at Ranchi which U wanted to dispose of with a
-~
S.C BAHRI v. STATE OF BIHAR
485
view to use the proceeds to migrate along with her children to America, A
where her parents lived. Accused SB not liking this, hatched a conspiracy
with the two co- accused RPS and GS to eliminate U and the two children.
On October 11, 1983 SExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.