Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.487 of 1989 =========================================================== Kameshwar Singh, son of late Ram Bahadur Singh, resident of Village Bhagwanpur, P.S. Dhaka, Dist. East Champaran. .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA) Date: 30-11-2012 This appeal is directed now at the instance of the sole surviving appellant, namely, Kameshwar Singh who, along with two other co-accused namely Lachmi Narain Rai, the sole appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 520 of 1989 and Most Lachhia, appellant no.2 of this appeal were convicted for offence under [STATUTE] . by the impugned judgment dated 16.9.1989 in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 1987 / 257 of 1987 sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. As noted above, during pendency of this appeal, both the accused persons, namely, Lachmi Narain Rai and Most. Lachhia have died and their appeals have abated as has been recorded in the order of this Court dated 5.11.2012. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell as per the version of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.487 of 1989 dt.30-11-2012 2 the village Chawkidar Sk. Nasir (P.W.20) is that on 16.7.1986 at 3 AM in the morning while he was on patrol duty, he had gone to village Bhagwanpur on hearing the news of murder of a person and had reached at the Darwaja of the appellant Kameshwar Singh. He had come to know from the villagers Ramadhar Rai (P.W.1), Jaga Sah (P.W.9), Ramanand Thakur (P.W.8), Bhal Rai (P.W.5) that Kameshwar Singh as also Lachmi Narain Rai and mother of Kameshwar Singh having called Sant Lal Singh, the father-in-law of appellant Kameshwar Singh by practicing fraud, had done him to death by inflicting injuries by sword. The informant Chowkidar, however, has also put the version of the appellant Kameshwar Singh and co-accused Lachmi Narain Rai who, according to him, had stated that at about quarter past eleven, one person had forcibly entered in his house with a view to kill them and as such, the person was killed in retaliation and the dead body was still lying in the house. The person who was done to death has also been named as Sant Lal, the father-in-law of the appellant Kameshwar Singh. 3. It is this First Information Report of the Chowkidar (P.W.20) on which Dhaka P.S. Case No. 69 of 1986 was recorded at early morning at 5 AM on 16.7.1986 and the police immediately having swung into action had not only apprehended all the three accused persons including the appellant Kameshwar Singh but had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.487 of 1989 dt.30-11-2012 3 also recorded the statement of the witnesses out of whom the wife of appellant Kameshwar Singh, namely, Usha Devi had given the entire version of the occurrence as an eyewitness. The police thereafter having been concluded the investigation had submitted the charge- sheet whereafter the case was committed to the court of sessions and has eventually led to the completion of trial in which all the three accused persons including the present appellant had been convicted and sentenced in the manner indicated above. 4. Mr. Yogedra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants has, while assailing the impugned judgment, basically concentrated on the aspect that whatever act had led to the murder of the deceased Sant Lal Singh could at best be ascribed against the two other co-accused persons Lachmi Narain Rai and Lachhia Devi and when there is also an evidence of the prosecution itself that the sole appellant was under duress, threat and coercion of death of both the accused to either give support to their bid in doing away the life of the deceased Sant Lal Singh or else he would face the same consequence, the case of the appellant Kameshwar Singh would be at entirely different footing as against the other two co-accused persons (since dead). He has further submitted that it is the case of the sole eyewitness Usha Devi who in fact was not even present in the house and, therefore, her testimony, in absence of any independent Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.487 of 1989 dt.30-11-2012 4 corroboration, would not inspire much confidence. He has also proceeded on the safest line of assumption that the onus of explaining the presence of the dead body in the house of the appellant could be only shifted if the prosecution had proved its case as with regard to the appellant and two other co-accused being responsible for committing the murder of Sant Lal Singh but when that has not been done by the prosecution, the appellants or for that purpose the other two accused persons could not be expected to discharge the onus under Section 106 of the Evidence Act by explaining the reason of the recovery of dead body of Sant Lal Singh from the house of the appellant. In nutshell, he is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against the sole appellant and as such, he would be entitled for at least being given the benefit of doubt. 5. Per contra, Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that rarely there would a case where the prosecution would be in a position to bring home charge in a manner in which it has been able to do in this case. He has supported the impugned judgment on the premise that in the house of appellant, where the occurrence had taken place, there was possibility of only four persons being over there, namely, the three accused persons and the fourth being Usha Devi, the wife of appellant, who Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.487 of 1989 dt.30-11-2012 5 has not only fully supported

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.