Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.29 of 1990 =========================================================== Arjun Pandey son of Late Ram Udgar Pandey, Resident of village Bajitpur Karnail P.S. Tajpur, Distt-Samastipur. .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI Date: 26-06-2012 Sole appellant, Arjun Pandey held guilty for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] as well as [STATUTE] , without any separate sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Samastipur in his judgment dated 30.11.1989 passed in Sessions Trial No. 70/1986, 41/1987 has filed instant Appeal. 2. The prosecution case as per its F.I.R Exhibit 4 is that Ram Bhawan Singh (PW-9) in his Fardbeyan on 14.04.1987 at about 17:30 hours (over-writing) had disclosed therein that on the same date at about 7:00 P.M. (again overwriting) while he along with Singheswar Rai, Pradeep Paswan and Rajeshwar Das were talking to Mahant Narain Das at Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.29 of 1990 dt.26-06-2012 2 the Sahan of Asthal and a lantern was burning nearby over Chauki, saw five to six persons coming from eastern side. Believing them to be the people who were coming to meet with Mahanth Narain Das the informant claimed that when they reached nearby, he had seen them armed with pistol who after ordering them to remain seated had made indiscriminate firing over Mahanthjee on account of which Mahanthjee fell down from chair and died. It had been also alleged that the miscreants thereafter had fled towards southern direction and when they were chased they had fired upon Jamadar who had sought to obstruct them. The informant claimed that he had also seen both the hands of Jamadar in injured condition and blood was coming out from his wound. He had also stated that he along with others took Jamadar to the Asthal and from there he was carried to hospital. The informant had claimed identification of Rama Shankar Choudhary, Arjun Rai (Appellant) amongst the assailants in the light of lantern as well as also claimed that he could identify other by face. The motive of occurrence in F.I.R has been suggested an ongoing dispute in between Mahanth Sukhdeo Das and Arjun Pandey wherein deceased Mahanth was taking side of Mahanth Sukhdeo Das. On the basis of aforesaid written report Ujiyarpur P.S. Case No. 25/85 was registered under [STATUTE] and 27 of the Arms Act and after completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the aforesaid two named accused who were subsequently put on trial after having the case Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.29 of 1990 dt.26-06-2012 3 committed to the court of sessions wherefrom while co-accused, Rama Shankar Choudhary was acquitted the sole appellant/accused, Arjun Pandey had been convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 3. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that the appellant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated primarily in the background of land dispute and then a conspiracy had been hatched by the prosecution party who after having found Mahanth murdered by unknown criminals had conveniently roped in the appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-convict while assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence has submitted that the judgment impugned happens to be perverse, cryptic and is based upon presumption surmises and conjecture. He has also submitted that the instant FIR happens to be out and out a forged and fabricated document which has been created after taking the police in collusion and that happens to be reason behind that at each and every place where the time is mentioned, there happens to be over-writing and this part is suggestive of the fact that the FIR in fact has been ante-timed. Learned counsel has in this regard also contended that the aforesaid obvious discrepancy in the F.I.R has not been properly explained either by the prosecution through any of the witness nor by the I.O. who has been examined as PW-15. He Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.29 of 1990 dt.26-06-2012 4 has further submitted that so far status of witnesses are concerned there happens to be presence of PWs-6, 7, 8, 9 who have claimed themselves to be eyewitnesses to occurrence but after analytical approach of their evidence, it becomes evident that none of the witness is an eyewitness to occurrence. He has in this regard assailed the findings in the impugned judgment and has explained that putting reliance upon the testimony of these PWs and coming to the conclusion of guilt by the learned lower court is nothing but appears to be mere a mechanical approach. In the aforesaid background he has also sought to also nullify the findings recorded by the trial court. In this context he has highlighted that though I.O. has been examined as PW-15 but his evidence is not going to improve the case of the prosecution in any manner rather from his evidence it is evident that no source of identification was at all shown to him by any of the PWs during course of inspection of P.O. nor he had an occasion to see the same which according to learned counsel would mean that the source of identification itself is shrouded in mystery and on that very score, appellant is entitled at least for benefit of doubt if not a clean acquittal. He has accordingly submitted that instant appeal is fit to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, lea

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.