Case: Prem Kumar And Another Vs. State Of Bihar

with rifles and all of them started abusing Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh and stated that he should be cut into pieces. Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh stood near the front door of the bus and fired shots with rifles. PW 8 was successful in fleeing away by covering his face with a chadar. He saw that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh to injured by the bullet inside the bus. Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was behind him when firing had taken place. He did not see bullet being fired on any other passenger other than Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. Another person, who was a forest guard, was injured on being hit by a bullet. The FIR available at pages 51-54 of Volume III of the paper-book and the deposition of the eyewitnesses, PW 1, PW 2, PW 5 and PW 8, of whom PW 5 is an independent witness, clearly bring out the fact that Accused 1 and 2 came in a jeep and a car with rifles, with a few other persons, that they got into the bus from the front and fired indiscriminately at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. PW 5, a forest officer as an independent witness, who himself sustained injuries, has also stated that he knew Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. He also stated that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh died inside the bus on being hit by the bullets. There is no contradiction with regard to the crucial aspects, namely, that these witnesses travelled along with Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh in the same bus, that the bus stopped at Ketat Village to drop a passenger, at that time Accused 1 and 2 came in a jeep and a car with rifles from behind, along with others, surrounded the bus and after proclaiming that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh is inside the bus and he should be cut into pieces, they entered the bus and fired indiscriminately, at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, which resulted in the death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh instantaneously. 9. PW. 4 - Dr. R. K. Pandey, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body, proved the post-mortem certificate issued by him and also stated that the injuries referred to in the certificate were caused by firearms. Ext. 3 - certificate - is in his own handwriting and signed by him. Six metallic pieces recovered from the dead body were properly sealed and sent to the police. All the injuries were caused by some firearms. The post-mortem report - Annexure P-8, (Volume III of the paper-book) - mentions about two metallic pieces embodies in the wounds in the upper left side of the abdomen and also refers to a recovery of total six metallic pieces. The post - mortem report along with the evidence of the medical witness PW 4 substantiates that the injuries sustained by Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh were as a result of hosts received from the firearms and that they were fatal. Such injuries were sustained by Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh only due to the shots received from the firearms, employed by the accused against Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, while in the bus as spoken to by eyewitnesses PW 1, PW 2, PW 5 and PW 8. The direct evidence in the case, amply corroborated by the motive of the accused, positively points out the intention of the accused to murder Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. 10. Sachchidanand Deo, Inspector of Police, PW 14, who recorded the FIR, stated that he had seized two bullets on the front gate footsteps of the bus and that he did not find any rifle or gun at the place of occurrence or nearby and that he recorded the FIR and other statements from the wintesses etc. It is also important to notice that PW 8 has given the number of the Fiat car and the Jeep and PW 12 Chandreshwar Upadhayay, who came along with Prem Singh in the jeep has categorically stated that the number of the jeep is BRO 2770 and Prem Singh regularly used to bring him in that jeep. . 11. Appellants counsel made a feeble attempt to contend that it is not clear in this case whether the injuries to Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh were caused by the rifle or by the gun. The plea was that the cartridges recovered were not sent to the ballistic expert nor was any ballistic expert examined. Our attention was invited to the decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh v. State and in particular to the observations of the Court at page 828 of the Report. We are of the view that the said decision is distinguishable. It will be found from page 825 of the Report that the accused in the said case produced a 12 bore gun Ext. P-16, for which he held the licence. He denied that he had fired with the said gun. His case was that Gurnam Singh, who reached the spot at about the time of incident, had fired at the deceased Dalip Singh. There were certain puzzling features of the injuries of Dalip Singh. It is in that connection the Court observed as follows. In a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it has always been considered to be the duty of the possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused. * The above observations were made in a case where the weapon with which the victim sustained injuries was before the Court and there was doubt whether the injuries could have been caused by using that weapon Ext. P-16, in the reported case. In this case, the rifles used by Accused 1 and 2 were never recovered. So, the prosecution could not, in the circumstances, allege that a particular identifiable weapon was used in committing the crime. There was nothing to be examined by the ballistic expert. The observations in Mohinder Singh v. State should be understood in the above peculiar context. There is no merit in this plea.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. We were taken through the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 (medical witness), PW 5 - independent witness (Forest Guard) and PW 8 - first informant and PW 12. We have also gone through the FIR appearing at pages 51-54 (Paper-Book No. III - Annexure P-10) and also the statement given by the accused in their examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. We shall now advert to the salient features disclosed by the said evidence appearing in the case8. PW 1, Bashishtha Narain Singh is the father-in-law of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. He deposed before the Court that he himself, PW 2, PW 8 and the few others were in the Santosh Bus when it stopped at Ketat Village, a jeep and a car came from behind and 10-15 persons armed with rifles and guns got down from both the vehicles and shouted that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh is in the bus and he should be cut. He was trying to get down from the bus to run away when Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh, Accused 1 and 2 came from the front gate with rifles long with Mundrika Singh (A-6). There were, amongst passenger, one Forest Department Official (PW 5) and another police official (PW 6). He knew Mundrika Singh, Ramesh Singh and Prem Singh for a long time. No doubt he had developed weakness in the eyes two months prior to the date of examination, but he had clear vision and his eyes were alright at the time of the occurrence. He admitted that he had given statement before the police that Ramesh Singh and Prem Singh started firing at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh after entering into the bus. He heard the noise of firing when he was fleeing from the bus and also heard the shouts of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh to save him. PW. 2 Ran Vijay Pratap Deo, deposed that he boarded Santosh Bus in the evening to come back to Rehla along with PW 1, PW 8 and Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh and when the bus halted near Ketat Village to drop some passengers, a Fiat car came from Daltonganj direction and stopped before the bus. Accused Ramesh Singh and others with rifles in their hands, and Mundrika Singh got down. Mundrika Singhs hands were empty. A jeep also came from behind and Prem Singh and others got down from the jeep with the rifles. The jeep and the car surrounded the bus and thereafter, he heard the noise of firing from the bus gate. Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh were standing near the front gate of the bus with rifle. The moment he came out of the bus, he herd the noise of firing and simultaneously the shouts of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. He also speaks about the enmity between the accused and Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. According to him, there was indiscriminate firing in the bus. PW 5, a forest officer and independent witness, stated before the Court that he boarded Santosh Bus at Daltonganj bus-stand on 13-1-1983 and when the bus stopped in front of Ketat Village, 5-6 persons surrounded the bus and started firing indiscriminately. He was injured due to firing. Tharkeshwar Prasad Singh, hit by the bullet, died inside the bus. Persons firing were outside the bus next to the bus door and were firing inside. The bullet hit the witness after breaking the glass of the bus window. He knew Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh before since he was a forest constructor. PW 8 - Dudhnath Singh, who gave the FIR available at pages 51-54 of Volume III of the paper-book, is the brother-in-law of the deceased Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. In the FIR he has stated that along with Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, PW 1, PW 2 and others, they boarded the bus at Daltonganj and when the bus reached Ketat Village at about 6.45 in the evening to drop a passenger, a car, belonging to Chandrika Singh, bearing No. WHB 5989, came overtaking the bus and stopped in front of it. The passengers, sitting in it, got down and were armed with guns and rifles. He recognised those persons. Among them Ramesh Singh. Accused 2, and others had rifles. Immediately after this the jeep, bearing No. BRO 2770, came and Prem Singh - Accused 1, and others got down with rifles in their hands. All the persons in the car and the jeep surrounded the standing bus and said that sala Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh is in it, he should be taken out and cut into pieces. The persons travelling inside the bus started begging for life and started fleeing. Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh were identifying the passengers and PW 8, by hiding his face, got down from the rear gate. Takeshwar Prasad Singh was in the back. As soon as the witness reached the rear gate, he saw Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh entering the bus from the front gate with their rifles and started indiscriminate firing on Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. The witness ran outside to save his life, but while running he heard Tarkeshwar Singhs shouts from inside the bus. He hid himself in the nearby bushes. The reason for this murder is that Prem Singh, Ramesh Singh and others had enmity towards Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh and wanted to take revenue due to the pending murder case of Rajan and Bishwanath in Daltonganj. As PW 8, the witness, substantially corroborated what he stated in the FIR. He deposed that he was travelling along with Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, PW 1 and others in the bus belonging to Santosh Transport Company. At about 6.45 p.m. at Ketat Village the bus stopped to drop a Passenger when a Fiat car bearing No. WHR 5989 stopped in front of the bus and Ramesh Singh and others came out of the same with rifles and thereafter a jeep bearing No. BRO 2770 came and Prem Singh and others got out of the jeep with rifles and all of them started abusing Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh and stated that he should be cut into pieces. Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh stood near the front door of the bus and fired shots with rifles. PW 8 was successful in fleeing away by covering his face with a chadar. He saw that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh to injured by the bullet inside the bus. Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was behind him when firing had taken place. He did not see bullet being fired on any other passenger other than Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. Another person, who was a forest guard, was injured on being hit by a bullet. The FIR available at pages 51-54 of Volume III of the paper-book and the deposition of the eyewitnesses, PW 1, PW 2, PW 5 and PW 8, of whom PW 5 is an independent witness, clearly bring out the fact that Accused 1 and 2 came in a jeep and a car with rifles, with a few other persons, that they got into the bus from the front and fired indiscriminately at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. PW 5, a forest officer as an independent witness, who himself sustained injuries, has also stated that he knew Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. He also stated that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh died inside the bus on being hit by the bullets. There is no contradiction with regard to the crucial aspects, namely, that these witnesses travelled along with Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh in the same bus, that the bus stopped at Ketat Village to drop a passenger, at that time Accused 1 and 2 came in a jeep and a car with rifles from behind, along with others, surrounded the bus and after proclaiming that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh is inside the bus and he should be cut into pieces, they entered the bus and fired indiscriminately, at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, which resulted in the death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh instantaneously9. PW. 4 - Dr. R. K. Pandey, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body, proved the post-mortem certificate issued by him and also stated that the injuries referred to in the certificate were caused by firearms. Ext. 3 - certificate - is in his own handwriting and signed by him. Six metallic pieces recovered from the dead body were properly sealed and sent to the police. All the injuries were caused by some firearms. The post-mortem report - Annexure P-8, (Volume III of the paper-book) - mentions about two metallic pieces embodies in the wounds in the upper left side of the abdomen and also refers to a recovery of total six metallic pieces. The post - mortem report along with the evidence of the medical witness PW 4 substantiates that the injuries sustained by Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh were as a result of hosts received from the firearms and that they were fatal. Such injuries were sustained by Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh only due to the shots received from the firearms, employed by the accused against Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, while in the bus as spoken to by eyewitnesses PW 1, PW 2, PW 5 and PW 8. The direct evidence in the case, amply corroborated by the motive of the accused, positively points out the intention of the accused to murder Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh10. Sachchidanand Deo, Inspector of Police, PW 14, who recorded the FIR, stated that he had seized two bullets on the front gate footsteps of the bus and that he did not find any rifle or gun at the place of occurrence or nearby and that he recorded the FIR and other statements from the wintesses etc. It is also important to notice that PW 8 has given the number of the Fiat car and the Jeep and PW 12 Chandreshwar Upadhayay, who came along with Prem Singh in the jeep has categorically stated that the number of the jeep is BRO 2770 and Prem Singh regularly used to bring him in that jeep11. Appellants counsel made a feeble attempt to contend that it is not clear in this case whether the injuries to Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh were caused by the rifle or by the gun. The plea was that the cartridges recovered were not sent to the ballistic expert nor was any ballistic expert examined. Our attention was invited to the decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh v. State and in particular to the observations of the Court at page 828 of the Report. We are of the view that the said decision is distinguishable. It will be found from page 825 of the Report that the accused in the said case produced a 12 bore gun Ext. P-16, for which he held the licence. He denied that he had fired with the said gun. His case was that Gurnam Singh, who reached the spot at about the time of incident, had fired at the deceased Dalip Singh. There were certain puzzling features of the injuries of Dalip Singh. It is in that connection the Court observed as followsIn a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it has always been considered to be the duty of the possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused. *The above observations were made in a case where the weapon with which the victim sustained injuries was before the Court and there was doubt whether the injuries could have been caused by using that weapon Ext. P-16, in the reported case. In this case, the rifles used by Accused 1 and 2 were never recovered. So, the prosecution could not, in the circumstances, allege that a particular identifiable weapon was used in committing the crime. There was nothing to be examined by the ballistic expert. The observations in Mohinder Singh v. State should be understood in the above peculiar context. There is no merit in this plea