Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.82 of 2005 ====================================================== Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16th October, 2004 passed by Sri R. P. Rai, Presiding Officer, Additional Court- 1, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2004. ====================================================== Nandjee Rawani son of Late Basawan Rawani, resident of village + P.S.- Brahmpur, District- Buxar………………………………... .. Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar………………………………………...... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 27-07-2012 Above named appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16th October, 2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2004 by Shri R. P. Rai, Presiding Officer, Additional Court-I, (Fast Track Court) Buxar by which the appellant was convicted for the offence under [STATUTE] and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The occurrence relates to one night of 8.9.2003 at 11.00 PM. Fard-beyan with regard to the occurrence was given by Baijnath Rawani the informant (since deceased) at 1.00 PM in the night of 8.9.2003 before PW 12, B. P. Mandal, at Rampur Police Station alleging therein that at 11.00 PM of 8.9.2003, he was urinating near the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.82 of 2005 dt.27-07-2012 2 wall of his house. At that time Nandjee Rawani, the cousin of the informant (appellant), asked the informant as to why he was urinating and at that time he was gazing towards his house, in the meanwhile the appellant Nandjee Rawani started assaulting him by lathi, as a result of which the informant fell down and the people of the locality came and carried him to hospital where he gave his fard-beyan (Ext. 3) leading to registration of formal FIR (Ext. 4) of Brahmpur P.S. Case No. 163 of 2003 dated 9.9.2003 under [STATUTE] . After death of the informant [STATUTE] was added. After registration of the case the investigation was started. Inquest report (Ext. 5) of the dead body was prepared and post mortem report (Ext. 2) was obtained. Statement of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After finding the case to be true, the chargesheet was submitted against the sole accused/appellant. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where charge under [STATUTE] was framed and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded his innocence and trial proceeded. 3. The defence of the appellant is of false implication and also that the victim fell down from the roof as a result of which he received injury on his skull and died. 4. The trial court after considering the deposition of 12 prosecution witnesses and also after analyzing the evidences, came to the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellant beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.82 of 2005 dt.27-07-2012 3 5. Now this Court is required to see as to whether the evidence brought on the record by the prosecution was enough to fasten the charge against the sole accused/appellant or not. 6. In order to prove its charge, the prosecution has examined altogether 12 witnesses. They are: Basgit Ram Rawani the father of the deceased (PW 1), Uma Kant Paswan (PW 2), Bhrigunath Yadav (PW 3), Santosh Rawani (PW 4), Bihari Mahto (PW 5), Kedar Mahto (PW 6), Ganpat Rawani (PW 7), Ramji Singh (PW 8), Dr. Ajay Kumar Pandey (PW 9), Ashok Kumar (PW 10), Shanti Devi (PW 11) and Basistha Prasad Mandal the Investigating Officer (PW 12). 7. PW 3 has been tendered by the prosecution. PWs 6, 7, 10 and 11 did not support any part of the allegation and they were declared hostile at the request of the prosecution and prosecution was allowed to cross-examine them. 8. PW 4 and PW 8 are the witnesses of inquest report. PW 5 is a hearsay witness. 9. The post mortem upon the dead body was performed by PW 9 on 9.9.2003 at 12.05 PM. The doctor has noted the following injuries upon the person of the deceased:- (i) Lacerated wound about 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. x bone deep over mid of scalp (ii) Abrasion 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. on left side of left eye brow (iii) Fracture of left arm 3” above left Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.82 of 2005 dt.27-07-2012 4 wrist. (iv) Fracture of left elbow (v) Multiple bruises measuring about 3” x ½” to 4” x ½” over left hand, back, right leg and left leg. (vi) Lacerated wound about 1” x ¼” x muscle deep on left leg. Rigor mortis was found present. The death was between 6 to 24 hours prior to the post mortem examination. The doctor found that these injuries may be caused from the falling of the roof of the house. 10. PW 1 is none else but the father of the deceased. His deposition is also of no use to the prosecution as he has expressed complete ignorance about the occurrence and he was also declared hostile. In cross-examination this witness has denied the suggestions given by the prosecution. He has stated that the occurrence was not at his place. 11. The occurrence is of the house but not even one inmate of the house has deposed in support of the prosecution case. The prosecution has tried to build up its case only on the basis of the fard- beyan of the Baijnath Rawani (deceased) and it has come that it was dying declaration with regard to death so it was relevant and admissible. Once it is accepted that it may be a dying declaration, then it can be said that its sanctity has inculcated the accused. Patna High Court CR.

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.