Amar Nath Jha vs Nand Kishore Singh

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that in the intervening night between 21st-22nd April, 1999 at about 12.00, about 30-40 unknown persons committed dacoity in the house of informant (PW9) and also in the adjoining house of his uncle-Madhukant Jha (deceased). The dacoits looted away gold chains, gold ring, bicycle and other household articles and cash from the two houses. In the course of dacoity, the dacoits fired gun shot towards Madhukant Jha aged about 75 years who died immediately thereafter due to gun shot injuries sustained. The dacoits were young and of different complexion; they fled away from the scene after committing the dacoity and murder. The first informant (PW9) was the eye-witness of the incident. Immediately, after the accused fled away from the scene, the informant came to know about the dacoity in the house of his uncle Madhukant Jha (deceased) and that he died due to shots fired at him; he came to the house of Madhukant Jha and saw his uncle lying dead. Ishwar Nath Jha (PW8) and Gena Ram (PW 7) also had sustained injuries because of the assault by the dacoits using stick 3 and bamboos. One of the dacoit was armed with gun and other dacoits were armed with lathis, bamboo, country made pistol and stick in their hands. While fleeing, the dacoits had exploded the bomb consequent upon which Gena Ram (PW 7) was injured. The first information did not specify any of the names of the dacoits. The informant claimed that himself and the family members of his uncle (deceased) could identify the dacoits who looted the articles. The first information was lodged at 3.15 am on 22.4.1999 at the place of incidence, i.e., Bhau Chapra after due consultation with all family members of deceased and others. The police official of P.S. Meenapur (district Muzaffarpur) recorded the first information.

3. After the investigation, police laid the charge-sheet against only four persons for the offences punishable under Section 396 and 412 of IPC. For the very offences, four accused including the respondents were tried. The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record convicted the three accused namely, Nand Kishore Singh, Mintu Singh and Maheshwar Singh for the offences punishable under Section 396 IPC, the accused-Maheshwar Singh was also convicted under Section 412 IPC; whereas the another accused, i.e., Ramesh Singh, was acquitted with respect to both offences. The Sessions Court sentenced the accused-Nand Kishore Singh to death punishment and sentenced the other two convicted accused for imprisonment for life under 4 Section 396 IPC. No separate sentence was awarded against the accused-Maheshwar Singh for the offence under Section 412 IPC.

4. The convicted accused filed appeals questioning the judgment and order of conviction and the same came to be allowed by the impugned judgment in so far as two accused-Nand Kishore Singh and Maheshwar Singh were concerned. Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed upon them was set aside. So far as Mintu Kumar @ Mintu Singh is concerned, the High Court confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court; however, since it was found that Mintu Kumar @ Mintu Singh was juvenile on the date of the offence and he was given benefit of Section 7A of Juvenile Justice Act (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended in 2006, his case was forwarded to the Board constituted to deal with the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, with the direction to pass appropriate orders in respect of Mintu Kumar @ Mintu Singh.

10. The third circumstance which we need to concentrate concerns non-reporting of essential facts which were known to the informant in the FIR. The High Court while appreciating the entire materials on record has affirmatively concluded that PW-1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10 & 12 belong to the same family of the deceased and reside in the same house. It may be of some significance to note that PW-9 (the informant) of this case is the nephew of deceased who lives in an adjacent house to that of the deceased. In the FIR, PW-9 has failed to mention the name of PW-1, is a significant person as per the prosecution as he had allegedly identified the accused-Nand Kishore Singh and Maheshwar Singh, who were the dacoits responsible for the aforesaid crime. It has come out from the cross-examination of PW-9 that he was aware of presence of PW-1 during the incident but he failed to mention his name in the FIR. Such non-mentioning of presence of PW-1, who was a material witness in this case, creates further suspicion on the hypothesis portrayed by the prosecution. The High Court on appreciation of detailed evidence has for the right reasons concluded that the informant (PW-9) was aware of the names of dacoits who had killed the deceased but failed to name them in the FIR. In this context we may note that the incident is alleged to have taken place in the intervening night of 21 st-22nd April, 1999, whereas the FIR came to be registered at 3.15 a.m., after a lapse of 3 hours. Despite sufficient time for the informant to gather necessary 9 information, which he did, the names of two accused respondents have conspicuously been missing, which also formed an additional factor for the High Court to acquit accused respondents. Although we accept that FIR need not be an encyclopedia of the crime, but absence of certain essential facts, which were conspicuously missing in the present FIR, point towards suspicion that the crime itself may be staged.

14. We also do not find any justification to reverse the finding given by the High Court relating to juvenility of Mintu Kumar @ Mintu Singh. On facts, on re-appreciation of the material on record, the High Court concluded that Mintu Kumar @ Mintu Singh was less than 18 years of age. The record reveals that he was directed to be examined by a Medical Board by the High Court during the course of hearing. The report of the Medical Board discloses that he was 20-22 years of age as on 22.04.2006. This conclusion arrived at by the Medical Board was based on radiological findings. The date of occurrence was 22.04.1999, which means that Mintu Kumar @ Mintu Singh was below 18 years of age as on the date of incident. There is 11 no contrary material on record for taking different view that has been expressed by the Medical Board which is consisted of three doctors including Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarpur. Hence, the appeal questioning the order holding that Mintu Kumar @ Mintu Singh was a juvenile is also liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

15. Since, we find that the High Court has appreciated every aspect of the matter on facts and has considered the entire material on record while acquitting the accused and since we do not have any material to disagree with the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court, we decline to interfere with the impugned judgment and accordingly the appeals fail and stand dismissed.