IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.692 of 2002 [Against the judgment and order dated 1.5.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, VIth, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1038 of 1998] ======================================================= Binay Kumar Singh, son of late Ram Nandan Singh, resident of village Jal Bisha, P.S. Punpun, District Patna (Informant). .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Pramod Singh, 3. Harendra Singh, both sons of late Sandan Singh 4. Nageshwar Singh, son of Devanand Singh, All residents of village Rampur, P.S. Punpun, District Patna. 5. Shankar Singh, son of Jangbahadur Singh, resident of village Makhdumpur, P.S. Punpun, District- Patna. .. Accused Persons. .... .... Opposite Parties. ======================================================= Appearance : For the Petitioners :Mr. Gajanan Arun, Adv. :Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Adv. :Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State :Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP. For the O.Parties :Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. ======================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 1.5.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, VIth, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1038 of 1998 by which the accused – opposite party Patna High Court CR. REV. No.692 of 2002 dt.12-12-2011 2 nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the night of 2/3 September 1995 the informant Vinay Kumar Singh (P.W.2) had stayed in the house of his father-in-law Madan Lal Singh and at about 11 p.m. some one knocked the door Rekha Devi @ Kalawati Devi, the wife of the accused Pramod Singh opened the door. Thereafter, Pramod Singh, Harendra Singh, Nageshwar Singh, Shankar Singh entered into the house. They were armed with pistol Pramod Singh asked the co-accused to kill all the members of the family, thereafter, the informant called Madan Singh to awake and fled away from the southern gate of the house. In the meantime, there was sound of firing in the courtyard. The informant raised alarm but no one came to the place of occurrence due to fear of firing. It is further alleged that the informant heard the sound of the deceased Sangita Kumari “ Bhaiya Hamara Ke Mat Marah”. The accused persons shot 10 to 12 firing, after two hours every thing became quite. Thereafter, the informant came to the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.692 of 2002 dt.12-12-2011 3 courtyard with the villagers and saw Madan Lal Singh, his son Jitendra Kumar Singh and his daughter Sangeeta Kumari lying dead. All of them had fire-shot injury. The house of Pramod Singh, Harendra Singh, Nageshwar Singh was closed and locked. All of them were found absent with the members of their family. The reason for the occurrence is that there was land dispute between Madan Lal Singh and the accused Pramod Singh and Nageshwar Singh. Madan Lal Singh had sold 1 Bigaha of land for the marriage of his daughter Sangeeta Kumari and Pramod Singh and Nageshwar Singh were telling that Madan Lal Singh had sold the land of their share. About two months ago, there had been quarrel relating to this sale. From that time Pramod Singh and Nageshwar Singh were threatening that the whole family of Madan Singh would be killed. Pramod Singh has purchased a gun. It is further alleged that Pramod Singh used to tell the informant to take the members of his family from that place. Three days prior to the occurrence Nageshwar Singh has sent his ox to his Sasural Makhdumpur. On 2.9.1995 all the four accused killed Madan Lal Singh, his son Jitendra Singh Patna High Court CR. REV. No.692 of 2002 dt.12-12-2011 4 and daughter Sangeeta Kumari by firearm and left his house with the members of his family. 3. The fard beyan (Ext. 3) of the informant was recorded at 6 a.m. in the village Rampur, thereafter, Punpun P. S. Case No. 49 of 1995 was instituted against all the four accused for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against them. Cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of session. After the trial all the accused were acquitted by the impugned order holding that a suspicion however it may be strong, cannot take place of evidence merely by facts absconding of the accused persons from the house. The accused persons cannot be held guilty for the charge framed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner- informant Vinay Kumar Singh (P.W. 2) has supported the prosecution case who has seen accused persons to have entered into the house of the deceased. He has also stated about the dispute of land between the deceased Madan Lal Singh and the accused. Madan Lal Singh Patna High Court CR. REV. No.692 of 2002 dt.12-12-2011 5 (deceased) had sold one bigaha of land for the marriage of his daughter Sangeeta (deceased). Two months ago there had been quarrel relating to the sale of the land. From that time the accused were threatening that whole family of Madan Singh would be killed. After entering into the house of the accused there had been sound of firing and after some time all the three persons were found dead having gunshot injury. P.Ws. 3 and 4 have also supported the occurrence. There is strong circumstance and a chain of the circumstance which lead only to the accused to have committed the offence. The evidence of P.W. 10 Doctor and P.W. 11 I.O. supports the prosecution case. It is admitted fact that the accused are living in the same courtyard and the accused Shankar Singh is the brother-in-law of the accused Nageshwar Singh who is only the outsider of the family and has also taken part in the offence. The learned trial court seems to have fallen into the error and has failed to consider that where a serious of circumstances dependent on one another they should be read as one integrated whole and not considered separately. 5. Learned counsel for opposite Patna High Court CR. REV. No.692 of 2002 dt.12-12-2011 6 party has submitted that it is admitted fact that the informant is the son-in-law of Madan Lal Singh and he appears to have committed the offence as he is real beneficiary after the death of the deceased. Madan Lal Singh, Jitendra Singh and Sangeeta Kumari are the father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in- law of the informant respectively. 11 witnesses have been examined out of them P.Ws. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are hostile. No independent witness has supported the prosecution case. Learned trial court has considered the evidence and has come to the right conclusion. It is settled principle of law that conviction of accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference. Offence should be proved against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence if each link of chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of accused. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision in the case of Banarsi Dass vs. the State of Haryana, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 450. 6. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.692 of 2002 dt.12-12-2011 7 evidence it appears that in this case there is sufficient material to show the circumstance committing the offence which has not been properly considered by the learned trial court, finding is adverse and perverse. There is serious flaw in the judgment of the learned trial court. 7. It is a settled principle of law that in the case of circumstantial evidence, various circumstances should be able to form a chain pointing to the guilt of the accused. In cases where there is only circumstantial evidence, the Court has to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution and decide whether the evidence proves particular facts relevant for the purpose of the case and when such facts are proved the question arises whether the facts are capable of giving rise to any inference of the guilt of the accused persons or not. Reference may be made to a decision in the case of Sudama Pandey & Ors. vs. the State of Bihar, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 679. In the case of Banarasi Das (supra) it has also been held that the prosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard so far as it satisfies Patna High Court CR. REV. No.692 of 2002 dt.12-12-2011 8 essentials of a complete chain duly supported by appropriate evidence. In my opinion, this decision does not help the accused-opposite party. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances, stated above, I find that the finding recorded by the learned trial court is not in accordance with law. The impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned trial court for considering the evidence afresh after hearing both the parties and passing the order in accordance with law. 9. In the result, this application is allowed. Patna High Court Dated 12th of December 2011 N.A.F.R/Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)