Patna High Court
Bhola Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 30 September, 2024
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar, Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.427 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2016 Thana- BEUR District- Patna ====================================================== Bhola Kumar Son Of Ram Pravesh Singh, Resident Of Village - Hasanpura, P.S.- Beur, Dist.- Patna. ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 441 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2016 Thana- BEUR District- Patna ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu S/O Late Naveen Singh @ Navin Singh, R/O Village- Medani Chak, P.S. Beur, District-Patna ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 467 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2016 Thana- BEUR District- Patna ====================================================== Vikky Kumar @ Vikky Son Of Krishnadeo Rai, Resident Of Shivchak, P.S. - Gaurichak, District - Patna. ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 497 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2016 Thana- BEUR District- Patna Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024 2/85 ====================================================== Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Rai Son Of Dwarika Rai @ Dawarika Prasad, Resident Of Chhakan Tola, North Mandiri, P.S.- Budha Colony, District- Patna. ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 502 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2016 Thana- BEUR District- Patna ====================================================== Ranjan Kumar S/O Ram Pravesh Singh, R/O Hasanpura, Beur, P.S.-beur, District-Patna ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 572 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2016 Thana- BEUR District- Patna ====================================================== Bhavya Prakash @ King Son Of Late Sadan Kumar, Resident Of Ram Lakhan Mahto Flat, P.S. - Jakkanpur, District- Patna ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1150 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2016 Thana- BEUR District- Patna ====================================================== Santosh Kumar Son Of Late Shyam Babu Rai, R/O Village- Hasanpura, Hasanpura Road, Near The House Of Uday Kumar Mukhiya, P.S.- Beur, Dist.- Patna ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024 3/85 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 427 of 2021) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Alaxander Ashok, Advocate. Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP For the informant : Mrs. Jayanti Jha (in person) Ms. Surya Nilambari, Amicus Curiae. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. Mr. Satendra Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Krishna Murari Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Kumar Shivam Sinha, Advocate. (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 441 of 2021) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Advocate. Ms. Munni Kumari Moon,Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP For the informant : Mrs. Jayanti Jha (in person) Ms. Surya Nilambari, Amicus Curiae. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. Mr. Satendra Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Krishna Murari Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Kumar Shivam Sinha, Advocate. (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 467 of 2021) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP For the informant : Mrs. Jayanti Jha (in person) Ms. Surya Nilambari, Amicus Curiae. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. Mr. Satendra Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Krishna Murari Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Kumar Shivam Sinha, Advocate. (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 497 of 2021) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP For the informant : Mrs. Jayanti Jha (in person) Ms. Surya Nilambari, Amicus Curiae. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. Mr. Satendra Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024 4/85 Mr. Krishna Murari Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Kumar Shivam Sinha, Advocate. (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 502 of 2021) For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Soni Srivastava, Advocate. Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate. Ms. Sarandha Suman, Advocate. Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Advocate. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP For the informant : Mrs. Jayanti Jha (in person) Ms. Surya Nilambari, Amicus Curiae. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. Mr. Satendra Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Krishna Murari Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Kumar Shivam Sinha, Advocate. (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 572 of 2021) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP For the informant : Mrs. Jayanti Jha (in person) Ms. Surya Nilambari, Amicus Curiae. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. Mr. Satendra Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Krishna Murari Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Kumar Shivam Sinha, Advocate. (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1150 of 2023) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Ojha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP For the informant : Mrs. Jayanti Jha (in person) Ms. Surya Nilambari, Amicus Curiae. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. Mr. Satendra Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Krishna Murari Prasad, Advocate. Mr. Kumar Shivam Sinha, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR) Date :30-09-2024 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024 5/85 All the appeals have been taken up together for hearing and disposal because they arise out of the same impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.03.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 2017, whereby all accused/appellants were acquitted of charge framed under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code but were found guilty of charge framed under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and appellant/Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu was also found guilty under Section 25(1-B)a & 26 of the Arms Act. 2. By the impugned order of sentence dated 16.03.202
,1 six appellants, namely, Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu,
Ranjan Kumar, Bhola Kumar, Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Rai, Bhavya
Prakash @ King and Vikky Kumar were sentenced to
imprisonment for life under Section 302 and Section 120B of
the Indian Penal Code each and they were directed to pay a fine
of Rs.50,000/- each and were sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years and directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant/Ranjeet Kumar @
Bittu was additionally sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
two years and directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
6/85
25(1-B)a of the Arms Act and was further sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment of four years and was directed to pay a fine of
Rs.4,000/- under Section 26 of the Arms Act. There was also
default clause. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
3. Appellant Santosh Kumar was not present on
16.03.2021. Hence, his sentence was deferred and arrest warrant
was issued against him and on his arrest, he has been sentenced
by the impugned order dated 16.11.2022, whereby he was
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code each and was sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and directed to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In case of his
failure to pay the fine, the fine amount was directed to be
recovered as arrear of land revenue out of his estate at his cost.
4. By the order of sentence, the fine liable to be paid
by the convict/appellant was directed to be paid to the informant
herself and her minor children. Patna District Legal Services
Authority was also recommended to pay adequate compensation
to the victim (informant and her minor children).
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
7/85
Factual Background
5. On the fardbeyan of the informant Jayanti Jha, Beur
P.S. Case No. 241 of 2016 was registered under Section 302,
379 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 27 of the Arms Act agianst Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu,
Ranjan Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Bhola Kumar, Sukesh Kumar,
Rohit Kumar and others and on the self statement of Inspector-
cum-S.H.O. of Beur P.S. Dhirendra Kumar Pandey dated
15.09.2016, Beur P.S. Case No. 242 of 2016 under Section 25(1-
B)a and 26 of the Arms Act was lodged against appellant
Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu.
6. After investigation in Beur P.S. Case No. 241 of
2016, charge-sheet bearing No. 338 of 2016 dated 30.11.2016
was filed against Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu, Santosh Kumar,
Ranjan Kumar, Bhola Kumar, Rohit Kumar, Ajay Kumar,
Bhavya Prakash and Vicky Kumar showing Sukesh Kumar as
absconding, for offence punishable under Sections 302 and
120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
27 of the Arms Act.
7. After investigation in Beur P.S. Case No. 242 of
2016, charge-sheet bearing No. 333 of 2016 dated 30.11.2016
was submitted against appellant/Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
8/85
offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms
Act.
8. After taking cognizance of offence in both the cases
by learned Judicial Magistrate, the cases were committed to the
Court of Sessions and they were numbered as Sessions Trial No.
133 of 2017 and Sessions Trial No. 614 of 2017 respectively.
However, on 25.09.2017, Sessions Trial No. 614 of 2017
was amalgamated in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 2017 on
application of the appellant/Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu. In his
application, Ranjeet Kumar had submitted that both the cases
had been allegedly committed in the same transaction and hence
there should be a joint trial of both the cases. The amalgamation
was not opposed by the prosecution.
9. During the trial, charges were framed under
Sections 302, 120B and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against all the
appellants. Additional charge under Section 25(1-B)a and 26 of
the Arms Act was also framed against the appellant/Ranjeet
Kumar @ Bittu.
Prosecution Case
10. The prosecution case of Beur P.S. Case No.241 of
2016 as emerging from the fardbeyan of the informant Jayanti
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
9/85
Jha recorded by A.S.I. Devendra Kumar Singh at PMCH on
13.09.2016 at 10:30 am at Emergency Ward is that there is a
shop of his husband Ramchandra Jha dealing in marble and tiles
in the name of “Today Marble” at Beur more, Patna. At 8
O’Clock in the evening of 12.09.2016, her husband was
returning home by motorcycle, taking vegetables and milk and
as he was just twenty steps away from our home, the
Appellants/Accused Ranjeet Kumar, Ranjan Kumar, Santosh
Kumar, Bhola Kumar, Sukesh Kumar, Rohit Kumar @ Jeetu and
others, whom she can identify after seeing, surrounded him and
started rapid firing at him by their pistols. Ranjeet @ Bittu had
fired at his left side of chest. Ranjan Kumar fired at his left
shoulder and Santoh Kumar fired at Chest. Bhola Kumar,
Sukesh Kumar and Rohit Kumar @ Jeetu fired at left arm and
palm of right hand and elbow of right hand. After seeing the
firing, she started shouting loudly and informed the police by
her mobile. Thereafter, they fled away by white car of Santosh
and motorcycle towards Hasanpura. Thereafter, she reached, in
the fearful condition near the injured husband. Thereafter she
reached near her injured husband and with the help of local
people, she took him to S.S. Hospital, Anisabad. But due to
serious conditions of her husband, she took her husband to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
10/85
P.M.C.H and admitted him in the Emergency Ward at PMCH at
09:05 P.M. where the doctor declared him brought dead. She has
claimed that she had witnessed the occurrence with her own
eyes. She has also stated that the reason behind the dispute was
that the shop of the husband was in the name of “Galaxy
Marble” and he was doing very well in his business and due to
this, Ranjan Kumar started conspiring for his selfish reason to
get that shop removed and he started threatening to kill her
husband. For this reason, her husband left that shop and started a
new shop at the distance of 100 meter from the first shop but
dispute regarding the first shop continued. On account of being
angry, the accused persons under conspiracy had killed her
husband. She has also claimed that earlier Ranjeet @ Bittu who
had given Rs.1,50,000/- to Rohit @ Jeetu to kill her husband. He
was sent to jail on 14.12.2015 by the police. She has also
claimed that on the date of occurrence, her husband was
carrying Rs.50,000/- for commercial purpose which was stolen
by the accused persons after killing him. They also took away
golden chain weighing 30 grams from the neck of her husband.
She has also claimed that three persons were doing
reconnaissance around her house since 6:00 P.M. whom she
could identify them after seeing their face.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
11/85
11. The prosecution case of Beur P.S. Case No. 242 of
2016 as per the self statement of the Inspector-cum-S.H.O. of
Beur Police Station Dhirendra Kumar Pandey dated 15.09.2016
at 23:15 hours is that as per confessional statement of accused
Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu of Beur P.S. Case No. 241 of 2016, he
had proceeded from police station along with some police
personnel for recovery of arms and ammunition and at the
instance of the accused Ranjeet Kumar, one 7.65 mm country
made pistol made of iron and fiber and two live cartridges
unloaded from the magazine of the said pistol were recovered
and seized. On demand, no documents in regard to the seized
arms and cartridges were produced by the accused.
Prosecution witnesses at the Trial
12. During the joint trial, the prosecution examined
the following nine witnesses:-
(i) P.W.-1 – Jayanti Jha (informant)
(ii) P.W.-2 – Aarti Devi
(iii) P.W.-3 – Jayantrika Devi (mother of the
deceased)
(iv) P.W.-4 – Aditya Kumar Jha
(v) P.W.-5 – Dr. Sanjay Kumar (doctor)
(vi) P.W.-6 – Rajan Chandra Jha (son of the
informant)
(vii) P.W.-7 – Ajay Narayan Jha
(viii) P.W.-8 – Sanjay Kumar (I.O. of Beur P.S. Case
No. 241 of 2016)
(ix) P.W.-9 – Dhirendra Kumar Pandey
(x) P.W.-10- Nayan Ojha (FSL Expert)
(xi) P.W.-11- Vishwambhar Prasad (I.O. of Beur P.S.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
12/85Case No. 242 of 2016)
(xii) P.W.-12- Uday Kumar Singh(Sergeant Major)
(xiii) P.W.-13- Das Ashok Kumar
(xiv) P.W.-14- Dhananjay Kumar Singh
(xv) P.W.-15- Devendra Kumar Singh
(xvi) P.W.-16- Devendra Kumar JhaProsecution Exhibits at the Trial
13. The prosecution also brought on record the
following documentary evidences:
Exhibit. 1- Signature of witness Jayanti Jha on
fardbayan of Beur P.S. case no. 241/16Exhibit. 1/1- Signature of witness Vinay Narayan Jha
on fardbayan of Beur P.S. Case No. 241/16Exhibit. 1/2- Signature of witness Aditya Kumar Jha
on fardbayan of Beur P.S. Case No. 241/16Exhibit. 2- Signature of informant Jayanti Jha on
statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C.
Exhibit. 3- Certified copy of charge-sheet in Beur P.S.
206/14 u/s-120B , 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code filed against
accused Ranjeet @ Bittu, Anil Paswan, Sahil and Rohit @ Bittu.
Exhibit 3/1-certified copy of FIR in Beur P.S.
02/2015 dated 04-01-15 u/s-307/34 of IPC against accused
Ranjeet @ Bittu, Anil Paswan, Sahil, Rohit @ Bittu and Subham
KumarExhibit. 3/2- Certified copy of charge sheet in Beur
P.S. 02/2015Exhibit. 3/3- Certified copy of FIR in Beur P.S.
22/2015 dated 03-02-15 u/ss-399 and 402 of I.P.C and Sections-
25(1AA),26,35 of Arms Act against accused Ranjeet @ Bittu,
Ranjan Kumar, Anil Paswan, Sahil Kumar and Rohit @ BittuExhibit. 3/4- Certified copy of confessional statement
of accused Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu in Beur P.S Case No-22/15
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
13/85Exhibit. 3/5- Certified copy of confessional statement
of accused Rohit Kumar @ Bittu in Beur P.S Case No-22/15Exhibit. 3/6- Certified copy of confessional statement
of accused Sahil Kumar @ Lopi in Beur P.S Case No-22/15
Exhibit. 3/7- Certified copy of confessional statement
of accused Anil Paswan @ Bhura in Beur P.S Case No-22/15Exhibit. 3/8- Certified copy of seizure list of Beur
P.S. case no 22/2015Exhibit. 3/9- Certified copy of forwarding report of
the accused persons in Beur P.S. Case No.-22/2015Exhibit. 3/10- Certified copy of order sheet dated 22-
02-15 & 23-02-15 regarding rejection of bail to accused Ranjan
Kumar and Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu in Beur P.S. Case No.-
22/2015
Exhibit. 3/11- Certified copy of FIR in Beur P.S. case
no-274/15 dated 15-12-15 u/ss- 399, 402 of I.P.C and Sections
25(1A),26,35 of Arms Act against accused Rohit @ Jitu and
Ranjeet @ BittuExhibit. 3/12- Certified copy of FIR in Beur P.S. Case
No.-242/16 dated 16-09-16 u/s 25(1B)a & 26 of Arms Act
against accused Ranjeet Kumar @ BittuExhibit. 3/13- Certified copy of FIR in Beur P.S. Case
No.-243/16 dated 16-09-16 u/s 25(1B)a, 26 & 35 of Arms Act
against accused Ajay Kumar, Vikky Kumar and Bhavya Prakash
@ King.
Exhibit. 3/14- Certified copy of charge sheet in Beur
P.S. Case No.-243/16 filed against accused Ajay Kumar, Vikky
Kumar and Bhavya Prakash @ KingExhibit. 3/15- Certified copy of confessional
statement of accused Ajay Kumar in Beur P.S. Case No.-243/16Exhibit. 3/16- Certified copy of seizure list of Beur
P.S. Case No.-243/16 dated 16.09.2010Exhibit 3/17- Certified copy of order sheet dated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
14/8514-12-16 to 01-04-17 in S. Tr. No. 851/2016
Exhibit 3/18-Certified copy of order sheet dated
06.04.2017 in S. Tr. 851/2016Exhibit.3/19- Certified copy of order dated
17.04.2017 in S. Tr. 851/2016Exhibit.3/20- Certified copy of order sheet dated 28-
04-17 to 06-10-17 in S. Tr. No.- 851/2016 dt. 28.04.2017Exhibit.3/21-Certified copy of statement of informant
Jayanti Jha u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in Beur P.S. Case No.- 241/2016Exhibit. 4- Signature of Aarti Devi on Seizure list of
Beur P.S Case No.-241/16Exhibit. 4/1- Signature of Aditya Kumar Jha on
Seizure list of Beur P.S Case No.- 241/16Exhibit. 5- Post-motrem Report of deceased Ram
Chandra JhaExhibit. 6- Entire Seizure list of Beur P.S. Case No.-
241/2016
Exhibit. 7- Entire Seizure list of Beur P.S. Case No.-
242/2016 marked with objection of defence.
Exhibit.8- Production-cum-Seizure list of Beur P.S.
Case No.-386/16 dated 12-11-16 in which Jayanti Jha had
produced a computer typed letter of threatening given to her
from jail by the accused namely Ranjeet @ BittuExhibit.9- Charge-Sheet No.338/2016 of Beur P.S
case no-241/16Exhibit.10- Application dated 09.11.2016 given by
the 1.O. Sanjay Kumar to the Court of J.M.- Ist. Class, Savita
Rani, for sending only the arms for test to F.S.L, PatnaExhibit 10/1- Forwarding Letter No.-122 dated 09-
11-16 directed to the Director, F.S.L. Patna for sending of the
arms and ammunition seized in Beur P.S Case No.-242/16 &
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
15/85243/16 and also the pellets found from the body of the deceased
for testingExhibit.10/2- Application dated 27.11.2016 given by
the I.O. Sanjay Kumar to the Court of J.M.- Ist. Class, Savita
Rani, for sending the helmet having hole of bullet at its back for
test to F.S.L, PatnaExhibit.10/3- Application dated 17.10.2016 given by
the I.O. Sanjay Kumar to the Court of J.M. Ist. Class, Savita
Rani, for permission to send the arms seized in Beur P.S. Case
No. 242/16 & 243/16 for test to F.S.L., PatnaExhibit 10/4- Application dated 20.09.2016 given by
the I.O. Sanjay Kumar to the Court of J.M.-Ist Class, Savita
Rani, for permission to send the empty shells seized in Beur P.S.
Case No.-241/16 for test to F.S.L, PatnaExhibit 10/5 – Application dated 20.09.2016 given by
the I.O. Sanjay Kumar to the of J.M.-Ist Class, Savita Rani, for
permission to send the pellets obtained from department of
F.M.T, P.M.C.H, Patna in Beur P.S Case No.-241/16 for test to
F.S.L, Patna.
Exhibit. 11- Application dated 26.10.2016 given by
the I.O. Sanjay Kumar to the Court of J.M.-Ist. Class, Savita
Rani, for remanding the accused Ajay Rai, Vikky Kumar and
Bhavya Prakash @ King in Beur P.S Case No.-241/16Exhibit.12- Application dated 10.01.2017 given by
the I.O. Sanjay Kumar to the Court of J.M.-Ist Class, Rahul
Kumar, for information regarding continuing of investigation
against accused Sukesh Kumar in Beur P.S. Case No.-241/16Exhibit.12/1- Application dated 02.02.2017 given by
the I.O., Sanjay Kumar to the Court of J.M.- Ist Class, Rahul
Kumar with a prayer of passing order on petition dated 10-01-17
regarding continuing of investigation against accused Sukesh
Kumar in Beur P.S. Case No.-241/16Exhibit 13- Self statement of informant Dhirendra
Kumar Pandey in Beur P.S. Case No. 242/2016Exhibit-13/1-Endorsement on the self statement of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
16/85Beur P.S. Case No.-242/2016
Exhibit 14-FSL Report No.-2181/16 dated 25-08-18
with regard to Beur P.S Case No. 241/16
Exhibit 14/1-Signature of witness Das Ashok Kumar
on F.SL ReportExhibit 15-Arms Test Report dated 01.10.2016 of
Beur P.S case no-242/16 dated 16-09-16Exhibit 16 – Sanction order of D.M., dated
16.11.2016 in Beur P.S Case No.-242/16 dated 15-09-16Exhibit 17-Entire statement of Jayanti Jha recorded
US 164 Cr.PC.
Exhibit. 18- Attested copy of death inquest report
Exhibit 19- Fardbeyan of informant Jayanti Jha
Exhibit. 20- Certified copy of order dated 31-12-15
passed by S.D.M., Patna Sadar in case No. 2063(m)/2015 filed
by deceased Ram Chandra Jha against accused Ranjeet @ Bittu
Exhibit. 21- Certified copy of order dated 12.11.2016
of National Lok Adalat in case 2063(m)/2015 filed by deceased
Ram Chandra Jha against accused Ranjeet @ Bittu
Exhibit. 22- Certified copy of report of police given
to S.D.M., Patna Sadar for initiation of proceeding u/s 107 of
Cr.PC on the application of deceased Ram Chandra Jha against
accused, namely, Ranjeet @ Bitu, Ranjan Kumar, Subham
Kumar and Sukesh Kumar
Exhibit. 23- Cenified copy of application dated
09.11.2015 given by deceased Ram Chandra Jha to S.S.P., Patna
alleging about threat to his life and property from accused
Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu
Exhibit 24- Certified copy of Informatory Petition
No.-3802/2015 filed by deceased Ram Chandra Jha against
accused Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu, Ranjan Kumar, Bhola Kumar,
Sukesh Kumar, Subham Kumar, Sahil @ Loki, Rohit @ Bittu
and Anil Paswan in the Court of C.J.M., Patna
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
17/85
Exhibit. 25- Carbon copy of application dated
13.07.2014 given by deceased Ram Chandra Jha to S.H.O. of
Gardani Bagh regarding dispute over shop with one Pintu
Exhibit 25/1- Application dated 28.01.2015 given by
Ram Chandra Jha to S.H.O., Beur P.S. regarding demand of
rangdari and threatening to kill given to him by accused,
namely, Ranjeet @ Bittu, Ranjan Kumar, Bhola Kumar, Sukesh
Kumar and Subham Kumar
Exhibit. 25/2- Application dated 28.01.2015 given by
Ram Chandra Jha to S.H.O Beur P.S regarding demand of Rs.-
Four Lakh and threatening to kill by accused Ranjeet Kumar @
Bittu and four others after entering into his house.
Exhibit.26- Attested copies of Sanha No. 432/16,
453/16, 381/16 and 386/16 of station diary of Beur P.S lodged
on information of Jayanti Jha regarding murder of her husband
and also regarding threatening given by accused persons of Beur
P.S. Case No.-241/16 to kill her if she did not withdraw the case
against accused persons
Exhibit.27- Original letter dated 21.04.2016 of S.S.P.,
Patna regarding demand for fee of the bodyguard appointed with
the deceased Ram Chandra Jha in the light of impending threat
to his life.
Exhibit. 28- Original letter dated 17.06.2016 of
S.S.P., Patna regarding withdrawal of bodyguard from deceased
Ram Chandra Jha
Material Exhibits:-
M Exhibit. I- Black Helmet having a hole on the back
allegedly worn by Ram Chandra JhaM Exhibit. II- Seized pistol in Beur P.S Case No.-
242/16
M Exhibit. II/1 to II/3-Three pistols seized in Beur
P.S. Case No.-243/16M Exhibit III to III/9- Ten empty shells in a sealed
yellow envelopeM Exhibit IV to IV/7- Eight bullets in a sealed &
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
18/85packed white envelope
M Exhibit V. -Empty glass bottle
M Exhibit VI to VI/7-Four bullets & four shells
Documents marked for identification
Exhibit “X” to “X/2”- Three photographs allegedly
of surroundings of the P.O. of Beur P.S. Case No.-241/16 for
identificationExhibit. “X/3”- Xerox copy of Informatory Petition
No.-3802/15Exhibit. “X/4”- Xerox copy application given to
S.S.P.Exhibit. “X/5”- Xerox copy of Hindustan paper
cutting dated 16.12.2015 containing news of arrest of accused
Rohit to whom accused, namely, Ranjeet @ Bittu had allegedly
given a contract to kill Ram Chandra JhaExhibit. “X/6”- Xerox copy letter dated 06.05.2016
given by Ram Chandra Jha to D.G.P., Bihar, Patna, for saving
his life and property from all accused personsExhibit. “X/7”- Xerox copy of Letter No. 4804, dated
21.04.2016 of S. S.P, PatnaExhibit. “X/8”- Xerox copy of Dainik Jagran News
Paper cutting dated 28.05.2016 regarding failure of plan to kill
Ram Chandra JhaExhibit. “X/9”- Xerox copy of Letter No. 6716 dated
17.06.2016 of S.S.P., PatnaExhibit. “X/10”-Xerox copy of Letter No. 7531 dated
06.07.2016, of S.S.P, Patna regarding appointment of bodyguard
with deceased Ram Chandra JhaExhibit. “X/11”- Xerox copy of FIR of Shastri Nagar
P.S. Case No. 286/2017 dated 23.05.2017
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
19/85Statement U/s 313 Cr.PC.
14. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused
persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC confronting
them with incriminating circumstances which came in the
prosecution evidence, so as to afford them opportunity to
explain those circumstances. During this examination, they
admitted that they had heard the evidence of prosecution
witnesses against them. But they did not explain any
circumstance, though they claimed that the prosecution evidence
was false and they are innocent. However, all the appellants
have taken plea of alibi stating that at the time of alleged
occurrence, they were somewhere else, and not at the place of
occurrence. Appellant/Ranjeet @ Bittu has stated that at the time
of alleged occurrence, he was in Ranchi. Appellant/ Santosh
Kumar has also stated that he was also at his shop in Hasanpura
at the time of alleged occurrence. Appellant/Ranjan Kumar has
also stated that at the time of alleged occurrence, he was at
village- Bhetbara situated in police station Gopalpur, Patna.
Appellant Bhola Kumar has claimed that he was also at his
home situated at Hasanpur at the time of the alleged occurrence.
Appellant Ajay Rai has stated that he was also at his home
situated at North Mandiri, Patna at the time of alleged
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
20/85
occurrence. Appellant/Bhavya Prakash @ King has stated that
he was at his home situated at old Jakkanpur. Appellant/Vikky
Kumar has also stated that he was also at his home situated at
Shivchak at the time of alleged occurrence.
Defence witnesses at the Trial
15. Appellants have also examined following two
witnesses in their defence:
(i) D.W.1- Prashant Kumar Singh
(ii) D.W.2- Ajit Kumar
16. However, no documentary evidence was brought
on record by the appellants in their defence.
Finding of the Trial Court
17. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the
evidence on record and considering the submissions of the
parties passed the impugned judgment finding that the
prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond all
reasonable doubts, relying upon P.W.-1/informant/Jayanti Jha
and P.W.-6/Rajan Chandra Jha as eye-witnesses.
Submissions of the parties
18. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants
and learned A.P.P. for the State. We have also heard the
informant in person besides her counsel and Amicus Curiae
appointed to assist this Court on behalf of the informant.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
21/85
19. Learned counsel for the appellants have
submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by learned Trial Court are not sustainable in
the eye of law or on facts. Learned Trial Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence on record and has erroneously
convicted the appellants, whereas all the appellants should have
been acquitted of all the charges for want of any cogent legal
evidence on record which could have connected the appellants
with the alleged offence.
20. To substantiate their submissions, they have
submitted that the first version of the prosecution case has been
deliberately suppressed by not bringing on record the detailed
information given by the informant to the police on mobile. The
statement of Arti Devi (P.W.-2) as given by her at the place of
occurrence before the police has also been withheld by the
prosecution.
21. They have further submitted that the FIR has been
deliberately lodged after about 15 hours of the occurrence for
consultation and deliberation so that a concocted/embellished
FIR implicating the innocent persons only on the basis of
suspicion and enmity could be lodged. The inquest report was
also prepared at 10:05 AM on 13.09.2016 prior to giving
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
22/85
fardebayan at 10:30 AM or lodging of the FIR at 12:15 PM on
13.09.2016.
22. They have further submitted that in the case on
hand, there is no eye-witness, though the informant/Jayanti Jha
(P.W.-1) and P.W.-6/Rajan Chandra Jha, son of the deceased,
have been falsely projected as eye-witnesses. To substantiate
this submission, they have submitted that the claim of these two
witnesses to be eye-witness is not supported by the I.O. The I.O.
has not found light at the place of occurrence. Even the car as
claimed by the informant in regard to hiding behind was also
not found by the police. The unnatural conduct of these two eye-
witnesses at the time of occurrence also creates serious doubt
that they were present at the place of occurrence.
23. Previous enmity between the informant and the
appellants is also admitted and it is this enmity on account of
which the Appellants have been falsely implicated only on the
basis of suspicion. Suspicion however strong, can not take the
place of proof.
24. They have also claimed that the testimonies of
these two witnesses who are claimed to be eye-witnesses are full
of contradictions and improvements and unnatural conduct
making them unreliable witnesses.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
23/85
25. They have also submitted that the articles which
were seized during investigation were not properly seized and
sealed. This vitiates the recovery and seizure, making serious
dent into the prosecution case.
26. They have also submitted that there is no eye-
witness or direct evidence in support of the prosecution case and
the circumstantial evidence are not such which form a complete
chain of circumstances leading to irresistible conclusion that the
appellants were guilty of the alleged offence. They have also
submitted that not a single independent witness has been
examined in support of the prosecution case and all the private
witnesses which have been examined were family members of
the deceased and highly interested to secure conviction of the
appellants on account of previous enmity.
27. Per contra, the informant/Jayanti Jha (P.W.-1)
has made emotional submissions praying for not only upholding
the conviction of the appellants but to enhacne the sentence by
awarding death sentence to them, though there is no such appeal
on behalf of the State for enhancement of sentence of the
appellants.
28. Learned Amicus Curiae and learned APP for
the State have submitted that the prosecution has proved its case
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
24/85
against all the Appellant beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, the
Appellants have been rightly convicted and appropriately
sentenced.
29. To substantiate their submissions they have
submitted that the informant/Jayanti Jha (P.W.-1) and Rajan
Chandra Jha (P.W.-6) are eye-witnesses and despite lengthy
cross-examination, their testimonies stand intact in support of
the prosecution case against the appellants and their evidence is
sufficient to uphold the impugned judgment of conviction and
orders of sentence. Though there are minor contradictions here
and there in their testimonies, they do not go to the root of the
prosecution case against the appellants. All links of the complete
criminalogical chain comprising when, how, where, who and
why of the occurrence have been well proved by these two eye-
witnesses.
30. They have also submitted the evidence of family
members of the deceased cannot be discarded solely on the
ground of their relationship with the deceased, nor could the
prosecution case be doubted only on the ground that
independent witnesses have not been examined.
31. They have also submitted that There is also no
abnormal/inordinate delay in recording the fardebayan and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
25/85
lodging of the FIR. They have further submitted that whatever
delay is there, is well explained. The informant whose husband
was brutally killed, could hardly be in such state of mind to give
a detailed account of occurrence immediately after it. She was
frequently getting unconscious.
Some Principles of Appreciation of Evidence
32. We have throughly perused the material on lower
court records including evidence and given thoughtful
consideration to the submissions advanced by all the parties.
33. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for
the parties, it would be pertinent to refer to some principles of
appreciation of evidence before we proceed to discuss evidence
on record.
34. It is true that prosecution case cannot be thrown
out or doubted on the sole ground that the independent witnesses
have not been examined because as per experience, civilized
people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed in
their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the
vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is
inevitable. The Court is therefore required to appreciate the
evidence of even related witnesses on its own merit, instead of
doubting the prosecution case for want of independent
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
26/85
witnesses. [Refer to Appabhai and another Vs. State of
Gujarat, 1988 Supp SCC 241].
35. It is also settled principle of law that the evidence
of any relative or family members cannot be discarded only on
account of his or her relationship with the deceased. The
evidence of such witnesses has to be weighed on the touchstone
of truth and at most the court is required to take care and caution
while appreciating their evidence. In this regard, one may refer
to the following judicial precedents:
(i) Abhishek Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1358;
(ii) Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh & Ors;
(2017) 11 SCC 195;
(iii) Mano Dutt and another Vs. State of UP;
(2012) 4 SCC 79;
(iv) Daulatram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
2009 (1) JIJ 1;
(v) State Vs. Saravanan, (AIR 2009 SC 152);
(vi) State of U.P. v. Kishanpal, (2008) 16 SCC 73;
(vii) Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) 14 SCC 150;
(viii) State of A.P. Vs. S. Rayappa,. (2006) 4 SCC 512;
(ix) Pulicherla Nagaraju Vs. State of A.P.,
(2006) 11 SCC 444;
(x) Harbans Kaur Vs. State of Haryana;
(2005) 9 SCC 195;
(xi) Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of AP,
(1981) 3 SCC 675
(xii) Piara Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab,
(1977) 4 SCC 452
36. This is also settled principle of law that minor
discrepancies, contradictions, improvements, embellishments or
omissions on trivial matters not going to the root of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
27/85
prosecution case should not be given undue importance. But if
they relate to material particulars of the prosecution case, the
testimony of such witnesses is liable to be discarded. In this
regard, one may refer to the following judicial precedents:
(i) C. Muniappan & others Vs. State of T.N.,
(2010) 9 SCC 567;
(ii) State of U.P. Vs. Krishan Master,
(AIR 2010 SC 3071);
(iii) Appabhai & Anr. Vs. State of Gujrat,
AIR 1988 SC 696;
(iv)Shivaji S. Bobade & Anr Vs. State Of Maharashtra,
(1973 AIR 2622);
(v) Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar,
2019 SCC OnLine Pat 1077;
(vi) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dal Singh,
(2013) 14 SCC 159;
(vii) Smt. Shamim Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi),
2018 (4) PLJR 160;
(viii) S. Govidaarju Vs. State of Karnataka,
2013 (10) SCALE 454
(ix) Narotam Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Anr.
(AIR 1978 SC 1542)
(x) Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana,
(1999) 9 SCC 525;
(xi) Subal Ghorai and Ors. Vs. State of WB,
(2013) 4 SCC 607;
(xii) Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors.,
(2017) 11 SCC 195.
37. In regard to delay in lodging the F.I.R., it is also
settled principle of law that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not
necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the
delay must be sufficiently explained to the satisfaction of the
Court, failing which, the veracity of the prosecution case
becomes doubtful on account of possibility of embellishment in
the prosecution version and in such situation, the delay becomes
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
28/85
fatal to the prosecution.
38. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meharaj Singh Vs.
State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188 has observed that delay in
lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a
creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not
only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also
creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or
exaggerated story.
39. In Gajanan Dashrath Kharate Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2016) 4 SCC 604, Hon’ble Apex Court has
again observed that delay in setting the law into motion by
lodging of complaint and registration of first information report
is normally viewed by courts with suspicion because there is
possibility of concoction and embellishment of the occurrence.
So it becomes necessary for the prosecution to satisfactorily
explain the delay. The object of insisting upon a prompt lodging
of the report is to obtain early information not only regarding the
assailants but also about the part played by the accused, the
nature of the incident and the names of witnesses.
40. In Ramdas & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) 2 SCC 170, Hon’ble Supreme Court has again observed
that it is no doubt true that mere delay in lodging the first
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
29/85
information report is not necessarily fatal to the case of the
prosecution. However, the fact that the report was lodged
belatedly is a relevant fact of which the court must take notice.
This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and
circumstances of the case, and in a given case the court may be
satisfied that the delay in lodging the report has been sufficiently
explained. In the light of the totality of the evidence, the court of
fact has to consider whether the delay in lodging the report
adversely affects the case of the prosecution. That is a matter of
appreciation of evidence.
41. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the following judicial precedents also in regard to the
effect of delay in lodging FIR:
(i) Om Prakash v. State of Haryana,
(2014) 5 SCC 753
(ii) State of H.P. v. Gian Chand,
(2001) 6 SCC 71
(iii) Kilakkatha Parambath Sasi v. State of
Kerala, (2011) 4 SCC 552
(iv) Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan,
(2013) 5 SCC 655
(v) Thulia Kali Vs. State of T.N.,
(1972) 3 SCC 393
(vi) State of Punjab Vs. Ramdev Singh,
(2004) 1 SCC 421,
(vii) State of A.P. Vs. Punati Ramulu & Ors.,
1994 Supp (1) SCC 590
42. In regard to transmission of FIR to local
Jurisdictional Magistrate, it has been also held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Chotkau Vs. State of U.P., (2023) 6 SCC
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
30/85
742 that the delay in forwarding the FIR may certainly indicate
the failure of one of the external checks to determine whether
the FIR was manipulated later or whether it was registered either
to fix someone other than the real culprit or to allow the real
culprit to escape. While every delay in forwarding the FIR may
not necessarily be fatal to the case of the prosecution, courts are
duty-bound to see the effect of such delay on the investigation
and even the creditworthiness of the investigation.
43. In regard to the inquest report having been
prepared prior to lodging of the FIR, Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Ramesh Baburao Devaskar & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2007) 13 SCC 501 has observed that first
information report cannot be lodged in murder case after inquest
has been held. However, subsequently in Sambhu Das Vs.
State of Assam, (2010) 10 SCC 374, Hon’ble Apex Court
again had occasion to deal with a situation where inquest report
was prepared two hours prior to lodging of the FIR. Here, it was
argued that FIR had lost its authenticity on account of it being
recorded subsequent to the inquest report. Disapproving such
contention, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that it might
not be true in all cases and all circumstances. Such general
proposition could not be applied universally by holding that if
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
31/85
the FIR was lodged for whatever reason after recording the
inquest report, the same would be fatal to the prosecution.
44. As such, in case FIR is preceded by inquest report,
veracity/authenticity of the prosecution case is not automatically
lost. It has to be tested by appreciating the attending
circumstances.
45. In regard to motive, Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5
SCC 626 has also held that motive plays an important link to
complete the chain of circumstances in a case of circumstantial
evidence. However, in case of direct evidence motive has no
much importance.
46. In regard to motive and suspicion, Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ramesh Baburao Devaskar & Ors. Vs.
State of Maharashtra, (2007) 13 SCC 501, has held that proof
of motive by itself may not be a ground to hold the accused
guilty. Enmity, is a double-edged weapon. Whereas existence of
a motive on the part of an accused may be held to be the reason
for committing crime, the same may also lead to false
implication. Suspicion against the accused on the basis of their
motive to commit the crime cannot by itself lead to a judgment
of conviction. In Pritinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 7
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
32/85
SCC 727] also, Hon’ble Apex court has held that howsoever
strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof
beyond reasonable doubts. Similar view has been taken by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171.
47. In Dilawar Hussain Vs State of Gujarat, (1991)
1 SCC 253, it has been also held that there is also no place for
sentiments or emotion in the Court of Law. Acquittal or
conviction depends on proof or otherwise of the criminological
chain which invariably comprises why, where, when, how and
who. Each knot of the chain has to be proved, beyond shadow of
doubt to bring home the guilt. Any crack or loosening in it
weakens the prosecution. Each link, must be so consistent that
the only conclusion which must follow is that the accused is
guilty.
Prosecution Evidence
48. Now, coming to the prosecution evidence on
record, we find that P.W.-1 Jayanti Jha is the informant and
widow of the deceased Ramchandra Jha. In her examination-in-
chief, she has deposed that occurrence had taken place at 8:00
pm on 12.09.2016. At that time, she was near Mithlanchal
Colony crossing. Her son Rajan Chandra Jha was also with her.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
33/85
He saw that her husband Ramchandra Jha (deceased) came there
on a motorcycle. On the crossing, accused Bittu @ Ranjeet
Kumar, Ranjan, Bhola, Santosh, Sukesh, Ajay, Vikky, Bhawya
Kumar @ King and 5-7 other persons came. All of them caught
the handle of the motorcycle of her husband and got him down.
Rajeet @ Bittu fired the first shot on panjra (chest), Ranjan
fired at left shoulder, Santosh Kumar fired at panjra of left chest
and Bhola Kumar, Sukesh Kumar and Rohit Kumar @ Jittu fired
at palm of right hand of her husband. They were firing from
their pistols. Sukesh fired at right elblow and Bhola fired at left
arm. King Kumar @ Bhawya Prakash fired at head leading to
fall of his helmet, but he (accused) put the helmet again on his
head. Ajay Rai, Vikky and Raju Rai fired at his chest. All were
carrying pistols and all had fired. They were carrying 5-6 pistols
and they fired at her husband by exchanging the pistols.
Thereafter, they did 4-5 air firing. 4-5 of them sat in the white
car of Santosh and went away towards Hasanpura. Four persons
went towards Hasanpura by two motorcycles. 4-5 of them sat on
the bridge near Bajrangbali temple. She then informed the police
about the occurrence. The information was given immediately
after the occurrence, thereafter she made mobile call to her sister
and brother. After the occurrence, she went near her husband. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
34/85
was bleeding. Thereafter she called her sister and son of her
sister. No passers-by stopped despite her request. Then Aditya
Kumar Jha (son of her sister) came and he slept before one
motorcyclist and requested him to take her husband to hospital.
The son of her sister and the motorcyclist took her husband to
S.S. Hospital. On the way to S.S. Hospital, there was one police
station. She had asked police for one vehicle but she was not
given any vehicle by the police. S.S. Hospital, Anisabad did not
admit him. Thereafter she called Gardanibagh Mobile Vehicle to
take him to Paras Hospital but request was rejected. Then she
took her husband to PMCH in an auto-rickshaw. Aditya was
with her. Enroute, near the court crossing, she met S.S.P., Patna,
who also accompanied to PMCH. Her husband was declared
dead at PMCH. Police came at PMCH where her statement was
recorded and after finding fardbeyan correct, she put her
signature on it. Her elder brother Vinay Narayan Jha and Aditya
Jha have also put their signatures on her fardbeyan. Her
statement was also recorded before Judicial Magistrate. She
identified Santosh, Ranjan, Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu, Bhola,
Bhavya Prakash @ King, Vikky, Ajay and others, who were
present.
49. She has further deposed in her examination-in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
35/85
chief that in January, 2017, the accused persons had extended
threat to kill. Accused Ranjan, Bhola, Ranjeet and Sukesh had
also extended threat. She does not know the name of some
others. They had called her husband at Hasanpura Bridge. She
prohibited her husband to go there and she asked her husband to
call them instead. Her husband had started tiles business in 2014
with Ranjeet @ Bittu in the name and “Galaxy Marble.” The
shop had started in July, 2014. The whole shop was built by her
husband. By agreement, Bittu had given a cheque. Her husband
had sold Alto vehicle for Rs.1,50,000/-. The said cheque was
given by Bittu, because vehicle was sold to him. But cheque had
bounced. On the day of giving cheque, he had got endorsement
that the whole money has been paid. Rajiv Roy had signed as a
witness. The reason behind the dispute was entry of Ranjan into
the business which was protested by her husband. But Bittu had
stated that he was just learning. Thereafter, Ranjeet and Ranjan
in connivance with owner of the house got her husband beaten
and get the case registered. In 2015 Ranjeet Kumar got himself
attacked. In 2014 Ranjeet had committed murder of Ravi. In
2015 he fired at Binod Singh. The case was registered and he
was sent to jail. Her husband had lodged a case against the
accused persons for extending threat. Ranjeet had hatched
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
36/85
conspiracy in the jail to kill her husband. He had hired criminal
for Rs.5,00,000/- to kill her husband. Regarding threat,
information was given to S.S.P. Vikas Vaibhav on 11.9.2015.
Inquiry was conducted and Bittu was arrested and the case was
lodged against him and he was sent to jail. Her husband was
given bodyguard, but the security guard was closed in July,
2016, and in September, 2016, her husband was killed.
50. She has further deposed in her examination-in
chief that on the day of occurrence at 6 O’clock in the evening,
three persons viz. Ajay, Vikky and King were doing
reconnaissance around her house, which was informed by her to
her husband and he was requested to come home at the earliest.
Her Mobile Nos. are 9308141602 and 8407808437. The Mobile
nos. of her husband are 9334064661 and 8877634604. At 7:26
in the night, a call came from her husband that he is coming
home as he has already purchased vegetables and milk.
Thereafter, when she called back to her husband at 7:36 P.M.,
there was no response. Thereafter, she proceeded out from her
house. There is a house of D.I.G. in the vicinity. She saw there a
crowd. When she reached there, all were assaulting her husband
by holding him. She had seen the occurrence from rear of the car
which was standing there in the vicinity. One electric bulb of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
37/85
200 watt was on. One gold chain of 30 grams, one ring and
1,00,000/- rupees were also taken away from her husband.
51. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that in
the business, 70% share was of Bittu and remaining 30% share
was of her husband. She has further deposed that from the house
of DIG, she saw that at Mithlanchal Colony crossing there is
crowd. In the vicinity of second floor, there was one light
burning. Her house is situated at distance one bamboo and 12-13
steps from Mithlanchal Colony road. There are 13-14 houses in
between her house and Mithlanchal Colony road. Mithlanchal
Colony crossing is at the distance of 40-50 steps or 100 feet
from her house. She has denied the suggestion that her house is
400 feet away from Mithlanchal Colony crossing and the house
of DIG is at Mithlanchal Colony road at the distance of 40 feet
from her house and her house is situated at the distance of 2-3
bamboos at the road coming from Beur More and the road
coming from Anisabad. She could not tell the distance between
her shop and Anisabad traffic circle. There are about 14-15
houses between Mithlanchal Colony road and Mithlanchal
Colony crossing, one of them being that of DIG. She again sated
that between Mithlanchal Colony road and Mithlanchal Colony
crossing, there are 4-5 houses. From Beur more, one road goes
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
38/85
towards Anisabad and another goes to bypass. Her fardbeyan
was recorded on 13.09.2016. In the fardbeyan, she has stated her
husband was carrying Rs.50,000/- for commercial purpose.
52. She has further deposed in her cross-examination
that the occurrence had taken place for 4-5 minutes. The place
of occurrence is a lonely area. Prior to the occurrence, there
were 14-15 persons and after the occurrence, there was no
person. Out of 14-15 persons, she knew 8-9 persons. She had
already litigation with 4 or 5 persons out of them. She again said
that she had litigation with 6-7 accused persons out of them but
again she said that no litigation was going on with any of them.
She does not know about Kotwali P.S. Case No. 474 of 2013.
Her husband had criminal case with Ajit Kmar Mishra but she
does not know the case number. Her husband had lodged
Complaint Case No. 21004 of 2014 against Lalbabu Keshri and
others, but she does not remember it. She also does not
remember that her husband lodged Criminal Complaint Case
No. 20788 of 2014 against Ajit Kumar Mishra. Shakti Kumar
Prasad had lodged a Money Suit against her husband bearing
Money Suit No. 1264 of 2014, but she does not remember it.
She has also no information whether Shakti Kumar Prasad had
lodged a Complaint Case No. 2720 of 2014 against her husband.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
39/85
She does not remember whether Beur P.S. Case No. 76 of 2012
has been lodged against her husband and others. The house of
DIG is situated at the distance of 60-70 feet from the place of
occurrence. Beur police station is situated at the distance of 2-3
kilometer from the place of occurrence, but none of her family
went to the police station. She has given her oral statement at
PMCH. She gave her statement after 14-15 hours of the
occurrence. For how long she gave statement, she does not
remember.
53. She has further deposed in her cross-examination
that motorcycle of her husband was standing at the place of
occurrence. He did not show the motorcycle to the I.O. Her
husband was wearing a helmet. The helmet was handed over to
the police. She stayed at the place of occurrence for 4-5 minutes.
At that time she was having mobile and she informed the police
regarding the occurrence naming the accused persons. For how
long she talked with the police, she does not remember. She
does not know the name of the Motorcyclist who took her
husband to hospital. Voluntarily, she had stated that Aditya was
holding her husband on the Motorcycle and he was sitting on
another Motorcycle. She also does not remember the name of
the person who was driving the motorcycle. He knows Amarjeet
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
40/85
Yadav of Hasanpura. She has no information whether a teacher,
who has been teaching at the house of Amarjeet Yadav had
carried her husband on his Motorcycle. She has denied the
suggestion that it was the teacher who informed her about the
occurrence. She has denied the suggestion that the teacher had
left his cycle at the place of occurrence and took her husband to
hospital on the Motorcycle of her husband and the cycle of the
teacher had been seized by the Police. She is also not aware
whether the cycle of the teacher has been released on P.R. bond
of the teacher. She does not know the number of the Auto
rikshaw driver nor does she know the name of the Auto driver
who took her husband to PMCH from S.S. hospital.
54. She has further deposed in her cross-examination
that she had reached Emergency Ward of PMCH between 8:30
to 9:30 P.M. She stayed there for about 12-13 hours. How long
treatment was given to her husband, she was not aware of,
because she was not conscious. She does not know when she
regained her consciousness. She could not tell whether she got
consciousness in the night or day. She is not aware when her
husband was declared dead by Doctor in PMCH. No medicine
was required during treatment of her husband at PMCH. She is
not aware when the dead body of her husband was sent for
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
41/85
postmortem because she had come back to home and the male
members were at PMCH. She could not tell the time when she
came back to home from PMCH. She has also deposed that she
heard sound of firing at the place of occurrence and saw the
occurrence with her own eyes and she took 1 ½ minutes to reach
the place of occurrence from her house and at that time, her two
daughters namely, Guriya Kiran and Roshni Kiran were at
home. At the place of occurrence, there were 16-17 persons and
all were criminals and none of them were from the locality and
she stayed at the place of occurrence for 4-5 minutes. There
were three vehicles besides the Motorcycle of her husband at the
place of occurrence. No local persons came out of the house
after firing. She did not raise any hulla for saving her husband
nor did she embarrassed the body of her husband nor did she
requested the criminals not to kill him because her son was
along with her. He was 10-13 years old. The police had not
seized any articles from the place of occurrence in her presence.
55. She has further deposed in her cross-examination
that there were about 16-17 firing and the firing was continuous.
There were 4-5 pistols. The firing ended in 1 ½ minutes. Pistols
were exchanged by the criminals. She had seen the occurrence
from the distance of 1 ½ laggas. The criminals could not see her.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
42/85
She was hiding herself in the rear of a car. The place of
occurrence is 12-14 feet wide. She does not know the length of
the place of occurrence. On both sides of the P.O, there was
water. She could not say to which direction the accused were
standing. Her husband was standing facing towards Hasanpura
and accused had surrounded him standing closely and they were
16-17 in numbers. Some may have missed the firing. After
receiving the gun shot injuries, her husband did not fall down
but all the criminals got him seated near the Motorcycle. As the
Criminals were surrounding her husband from all directions, she
could not see who was holding which part of the body of her
husband. She did not try to save her husband. She had reached
the place of occurrence prior to the occurrence because her
husband had not received her phone call at 6:36 O’clock. The
accused persons had also reached there but they could not see
her because they were busy in killing her husband.
56. She has further deposed in her cross-examination
that from the place of occurrence, she had called her sister also
who reached at the place of occurrence at 8:05 O’clock and she
lived at the place of occurrence till 8:10 O’clock. Her
Fardbeyan was recorded at 1-1:30 O’clock in the afternoon. She
does not remember how many times she made her statements
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
43/85
before the police during investigation. She also does not
remember whether the Test Identification Parade of the seized
articles were done before her or not. She was not taken to jail by
the I.O. for identification of the accused because they were
already known her. Her husband also used to do sale and
purchase of land and work of contractor. Her husband did not
fall down after gun shot because all the accused were holding
him. The clothes of her deceased husband got soaked in blood
from head to leg. Police had seized his full pant and shirt from
PMCH. When she met SSP, Patna en-route PMCH, she gave
oral information to him for about one minute about the
occurrence. She had informed the name of the accused also to
him. She never saw the accused persons sitting together to hatch
the conspiracy, but she had seen three persons doing
reconnaissance around her house. She has denied the suggestion
that she was not at the place of occurrence and she had not
witnessed the occurrence and she has falsely implicated the
accused persons on account of business dispute. In her
fardebayan, she has given her statement that she could identify
the rest accused when she would see them, but she was not
called by the I.O. during investigation for any T.I.P.
57. She has further deposed in her cross-examination
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
44/85
that she does not know when the appellant/Bhavya Prakash @
King was made an accused in the case. He had no business with
her husband. However, she has deposed that Bhavya Prakash
had enmity with her husband because in 2014, he had threatened
her husband to vacate the Galaxy Marble shop, failing which, he
would face consequence. However, she does not remember the
date or month of such threat given by Bhavya Prakash, nor did
she or her husband give any information to the Police in regard
to such threat. Bhavya Prakash had no sharing in the business of
Galaxy Marble. 4-5 persons used to come along with Bittu for
drinking liquor and used to make various planning and when it
was opposed by her husband, he was killed by them. However,
she has not seen such occurrence with her own eye. Such thing,
she had heard from her husband. But her husband had not given
such information to the Police in this regard. She had stated in
her fardebayan that she had taken her husband to hospital with
the help of local people. She has no knowledge about
geographical directions. She knows that sun arises in the east,
but she does not know in which direction, the sun sets. She
knows Bhavya Prakash since prior to the occurrence. There was
no crowd near the house of DIG when she went out from her
house. During investigation she used to meet the I.O. On the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
45/85
road going Hasanpura to Beur Mor, there is a shop of the
appellant/Santosh. She is not aware whether cement, iron rods,
stone chips and bricks were supplied by that shop to her
husband. She is also not aware whether Rs.2,950/- were
outstanding of Santosh against her husband in regard to supply
of that construction material. Santosh had nothing to do with
marble business. In regard to the information she had given to
the police from the place of occurrence,a sanha has been
registered but she is not aware of its number. She is not aware
whether it bears sanha no. 432 dated 12.09.2016. She had no
relationship with Santosh.
58. She has further deposed in her cross-examination
that before the fardbeyan, she did not send anybody to the police
station to give information regarding the occurrence because she
had given information to the police on telephone. On
information, the police had come to the place of occurrence
when she had left the place of occurrence along with her
husband but at the time of visit of the police, her sister Arti Jha
and her son Aditya Jha were present there. She has denied the
suggestion that she had not seen the occurrence. Her husband
had gone to jail on complaint of one Siddhartha Khetri in regard
to sale of land. Her husband had taken power-of-attorney from
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
46/85
Dr. Ajit Kumar Mishra on payment of rupees fifteen lacs that
land was sold to Dr. Siddhartha Khetri. One Shakti Kumar had
also lodged a criminal case against her husband. He had not
gone to jail in that case. She did not deny the suggestion that
Siddhartha Khetri and Shakti Kumar had filed two criminal
cases each against her husband but she did not remember
whether her husband had also lodged any case against them.
After the gunshot at her husband, she was the first person to
reach there. Her injured husband was taken to S.S. Hospital on
motorcycle of Aditya Jha. That motorcycle was being driven by
somebody else and Aditya Jha was holding his husband on the
motorcycle. She on the motorcycle of her husband being driven
by another unknown man accompanied the motorcycle carrying
her husband to S.S. Hospital. Both the motorcyclists went up to
PMCH. From PMCH, she returned by Police vehicle and the
motorcycle of her husband was being used at PMCH. She does
not know the name of the motorcyclists who drove the
motorcycle from place of occurrence to S.S. Hospital till date.
59. She has further deposed in her cross-examination
that she never raised any hulla when her husband was shot at.
She prohibited her son also from raising any hulla. His son went
back to home and she raised hulla after the accused persons
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
47/85
went away from the place of occurrence. Before raising hulla,
she made telephone call to the son of her sister. At the time of
occurrence, first of all, she give telephonic information to Beur
Police Station. Thereafter, she gave information to S.S.P., Patna
and third time, she gave her fardebayan. Her fardebayan was
recorded at 10:30 in the morning on 13.09.2016 and till this
fardebayan, she was with the dead body of her husband at
PMCH. After the fardebayan, she came back to her home. At the
time of fardebayan, she was with the dead body of her husband
in the Emergency Ward. She has denied the suggestion that the
occurrence has not taken place as she has deposed.
60. P.W.-6 is Rajan Chandra Jha, son of the
deceased, Ram Chandra Jha. He is aged about 15 years, but his
deposing capacity has not been tested by learned Trial Court as
required under Section 118 of the Evidence Act before
examining him. In his examination-in-chief, he has deposed as
deposed by her mother/informant earlier. In his cross-
examination, he has deposed that he reached near his father
within five minutes of firing. Only he and his mother were there
and no other persons were present. After walking 6-7 bamboo
and turning to right, his house can be found. There were two
white cars on the place occurrence. Behind one car, they were
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
48/85
hiding and another car was used by the accused to flee away. He
could not tell the number of vehicles. At the time of occurrence,
he was studying in 8th class. On the Mithilanchal Colony road,
there were no shops at the time of occurrence. He has denied the
suggestion that nobody had seen who killed his father. He does
not know a bamboo is equivalent to how many feet or meter. He
could not tell which part was held by which accused persons. He
has not raised any hulla. He came silently from his house and
went to his house silently. He has denied the suggestion that his
father has been killed in dark night by unknown criminals who
were having enmity with him and accused persons have falsely
been implicated and occurrence has not been seen by him or any
other witness. He could not see the fire arms was having one or
two pipes. He also could not see the colour of the fire arms. He
could not see whether the firing hit the car or motorcycle or not.
He and his mother had hidden for 3-5 minutes after the
occurrence. He could not tell about the occurrence to anybody.
By the time, they reached behind the car, he had not heard any
sound of firing.
61. P.W.-2 is Arti Devi, who is the sister of the
informant. In her examination-in-chief she has deposed that the
occurrence had taken place at 8 pm on 12.09.2016. At that time
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
49/85
she was at her home. By mobile call, her sister, Jayanti
Jha/Informant, informed her that Bittu, Bhola, Ranjeet, Sukesh,
Santosh and other 5-6 persons have shot her husband dead. At
the time of call, the informant was at Mithilanchal Colony,
Hasanpura mor. She reached on the place of occurrence on
motorcycle of her son, Aditya. She found that Shri Ram Chandra
Jha was lying on the ground taking support of his motorcycle
having helmet on his head. He was covered in blood. He had
received gun shot injury on the left side of panjra, left hand and
in his head. He had about 13-14 gun shot injuries. Her sister was
crying for help to save her husband, but nobody came forward.
On her arrival, two people came on motorcycle. She requested
them for help. With their help, Ram Chandra Jha was taken to
S.S. Hospital on motorcycle. Her sister also accompanied that
motorcycle. She stayed back at the place of occurrence.
Thereafter, she went to the house of Jayanti Jha where her three
children were there and advised them to keep the door closed
and again came back to the place of occurrence. Thereafter,
police came on the place of occurrence. She gave information
about the occurrence to the police. In torch light, blood was
found on the ground and the yellow part of cartridge was
recovered. Helmet of Ram Chandra Jha and his sleepers were
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
50/85
also seized. Seizure list was prepared by the police. By that
time, Aditya Jha had also come back at the place of occurrence.
He also signed on the seizure list. Thereafter, he went back to
her home with her son and again she went to P.M.C.H along
with her son. Ram Chandra Jha was dead and her sister was
lying unconscious. She stayed at the hospital till the morning.
62. In her cross-examination, P.W.-2 has deposed that
she has no knowledge about business of her sister, nor has she
any concern with it. She had given all information to the police
regarding the occurrence as per hearsay from her sister as well
as what she had seen on the place of occurrence. The police had
written down all the information. She does not know what
happened to her statement given to the police. On the place of
occurrence, her statement was first one to the police. When she
had reached the place of occurrence, only her sister and her
injured husband were there. She had not signed on the seizure
list. She had put her signature only on her statement given to the
police and had not put any signature on any other document.
63. P.W.-3 is Jayantrika Devi. She is mother of the
deceased. In her examination-in-chief, she has deposed that at
the time of occurrence, she was at home. She came out from her
home after hearing the sound of firing and came to know from
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
51/85
the ladies talking that her son has been killed by Bittu, Ranjan,
Bhola, Ranjeet, Sukesh, Santosh and Rohit. Thereafter she
reached the place of occurrence at Mithilanchal colony turning.
Informant/Jayanti Jha, her son Rajan Jha, Arti Jha, and Aditya
Jha were already there. Her injured son was taken to hospital
with the help of motorcyclist. Then she went to P.M.C.H.
64. In her cross-examination P.W.-3 has deposed that
the occurrence was seen by the local ladies who had gone to
answer the call of nature. Her son, Ram Chandra Jha was living
with his family separately from her. She is living with her
husband and children. There are 3-4 houses in between her
house and the house of Ram Chandra Jha. She has denied the
suggestion that she has deposed falsely on instructions of her
daughter-in-law, Jayanti Jha/Informant.
65. P.W.-4 is Aditya Kumar Jha. He is the son of the
informant’s sister. In his examination-in-chief he has deposed
that the occurrence had taken place at 4 pm on 12.09.2016. At
that time he was at his home. A phone call came from the
informant on the mobile of his mother. Thereafter her mother
informed him that Ram Chandra Jha has been shot at by Rajan,
Bittu, Sukesh, Bhola and Santosh. At that time the informant
was at Mithilanchal colony turning. Then he proceeded to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
52/85
place of occurrence on motorcycle along with his mother and
when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the informant
weeping and Ram Chandra Jha was sitting on the ground near
the motorcycle and blood was oozing from his body and blood
had thickened on the ground. Besides the informant, her son
Rajan Chandra Jha was also there at the place of occurrence and
saw Jayantrika Devi, mother of Ram Chandra Jha coming. He
sent Rajan to his home. The informant was seeking help from
the passers-by. Two motorcyclists stopped and came to their
help and with their help, he got Ram Chandra Jha seated on the
motorcycle and he was holding him by sitting behind and one of
those men was driving the motorcycle and took him to S.S.
Hospital. The informant was also following his motorcycle by
sitting on another motorcycle. When the S.S. Hospital refused to
admit him, he started taking Ram Chandra Jha to P.M.C.H in an
auto-rickshaw. En-route he saw the S.S.P, Patna coming from
the opposite direction. He got down from the auto-rickshaw and
asked for help from him and informed him about the occurrence.
He went towards the auto-rickshaw and he turned towards his
home and reached at the place of occurrence and saw many
police men there. His mother was also there. The police was
searching in torch light. The sleeper and helmet of Ram Chandra
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
53/85
Jha and cartridges were recovered by the police and the same
was seized and he signed on the seizure list. Thereafter he came
back to his home along with his mother. Thereafter he went to
P.M.C.H along with his mother. Ram Chandra Jha had died. His
body was lying in the emergency ward. The informant was
weeping and and frequently getting unconscious and she was
crying that Bittu and Rajan has killed her husband. He had also
put his signature on the inquest report.
66. In his cross-examination, P.W.-4 has deposed that
his house is situated at the distance of 100-150 meter from the
place of occurrence and at a distance of 200 meter from the
house of Ram Chandra Jha. The motorcycle on which he carried
Ram Chandra Jha to the S.S. Hospital belonged to him and the
another motorcycle belonged to the informant. The unknown
motorcyclist had got their motorcycles standing near the place of
occurrence. In the auto-rickshaw in which he carried Ram
Chandra Jha to the P.M.C.H besides him and the informant ,
police were also sitting in the auto-rickshaw. At S.S. Hospital
many relatives had also arrived and both the motorcycles were
given to them and he proceeded to P.M.C.H in the auto-
rickshaw. From the place of occurrence, the police had collected
about 10-15 cartridges. After walking 50-100 meters straight
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
54/85
from the place of occurrence and turning right and walking 15-
20 steps, one finds the house of the informant. He has no
information whether there is any house situated on that route.
His house is situated prior to the place of occurrence. Then
comes the place of occurrence and then comes the house of the
informant. His house and the house of the informant are situated
in different directions from the place of occurrence. The place of
occurrence is situated at the turning of Hasanpura road towards
Mithilanchal Colony. At the place of occurrence, it was he who
had taken out the helmet from the head of Ram Chandra Jha and
put the helmet beside him. He did not remember whether there
was any blood stain on the helmet or not. He has denied the
suggestion that there was any occurrence taken place as deposed
by him.
67. P.W.-5 namely, Dr. Sanjay Kumar is the doctor
who conducted the Postmortem on the body of deceased Ram
Chandra Jha and thereafter prepared the Postmortem report
which he has identified and proved during his evidence which
has been marked as Exhibit-5. During postmortem, he found
rigor mortis present all over the body and there were multiple
entry wound of size (i) ½ cm x 1 cm, (ii) 1 ½ cm x 1 cm, (iii)1
½ cm x 1 cm, (iv) 1 ½ cm x 1 cm, (v) 1 ½ cm x 1 cm, Oval
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
55/85
shaped burn and blackened inverted margin with abrasion and
contusion were present on left chest region, (i) middle line left
side 18 cm, (ii) ½ cm below nipple left side, 15 cm left of
middle line, (iii) 7 cm below of nipple, (iv) 12 cm from middle
line, (v) 21 cm left from middle line, (vi) 4 cm below axilla. The
bullet piercing into skin-soft tissues and entering into left chest
cavity by fracture of 4 to 5th ribs anterior. Then piercing into left
lung through and through and making diaphragam to abdominal
cavity. Pellet was present posterior cavity of right side abdomen,
left chest cavity and abdomen over filled with blood and blood
clots. Entry wound of size (I) 1 ½ cm x 1 cm (ii) ½ cm x 1 cm,
oval shaped with burn and blackening inverted margin with
abrasion and contusion collor were present (i) left shoulder (ii)
10 cm below left shoulder. The bullet piercing into skin soft
tissues. One bullet exit wound on posterior surface of upper arm
of size 1 ½ cm x 1 cm margin inverted. One pellet found on
upper arm latero-posteriro surface. (iii) Entry wound of size 3
cm x ½ , 2cm x 1 cm oval shaped with burn and blackening
inverted margin with abrasion and contusion present on latero-
posterior surface 12 cm below right elbow joint and posterior
surface 9 cm below right elbow joint. Bullet piercing into skin
and soft tissue exit wound do not found also pellet found in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
56/85
muscles part. (iv) Entry wound of size 1 ½ cm x 1 cm oval
shaped with burn and blackening inverted margin with abrasion
and contusion collor was present on dorsal surface of right palm.
The bullet piercing into skin and soft tissues and fracture of 3rd
and 4th metacarpal bone. There not exit and broken pellet also
found. (v) Entry wound of size 3 cm x1 cm oval shaped with
burn and blackening inverted margin with abrasion and
contusion collor was present below right shoulder 16 cm and 8
cm from axilla. (vi) Entry wound of size 1 cm x 1 cm oval
shaped with burn and blackened inverted margin abrasion and
contusion collor was present over left occipital region, 11 cm
back to left ear and also Extra dural and sub scalp haematoma
present. In his report, he has opined that the cause of death was
hemorrhage and shock and head injury resulting from projectile
fire arm injury. The time elapsed since death was stated within
twenty four hours approximately. He has also deposed that these
injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
nature.
68. In his cross-examination, P.W.-5 has deposed that
he had found total ten holes including the entry and exit. He has
again deposed that there were total twelve holes including ten
entry wound and two exit wounds on the body of the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
57/85
He had also found injury on the back occipital region in the
head. It is injury no.6. However, it is not mentioned in the
inquest report. Blood was oozing from that injury. In such
situation, the helmet should have got stain of blood. He has not
read the medical jurisprudence. He does not know the distance
from which firing can cause burn and blackening. He had denied
the suggestion that he had given the postmortem report without
doing examination of the dead body. He has not mentioned from
which injury bullets or pellets were recovered. He did not find
exit wounds of five multiple entry wounds. Bullets and pellets
are found from two different kinds of ammunition. Injury no. 5
and 6 had no exit wound. No pellet and bullets were found from
the injuries.
69. P.W.-7 is Ajay Narayan Jha, who is brother of
the informant. In his examination-in-chief, he has deposed that
the occurrence had taken place on 12.09.2016. He received call
at 6:00 O’ clock when he was in his village. On telephone, the
informant stated to him that the deceased has been shot at by
Bittu, Ranjan, Santosh, Ajay, Rohit, Sonu, Sukesh and Bhavya
Prakash. In the night itself, he set for PMCH, Patna. On the next
date, i.e., 13.09.2016, after 12:00 O’ clock, the dead body was
handed over after postmortem. When he reached the hospital, he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
58/85
found that her sister was unconscious and taking the names of
the accused persons in unconscious condition. He could not
identify any of the accused.
70. In his cross-examination, P.W.-7 has not seen the
occurrence.He has stated as per hearsay from his sister. He has
denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely.
71. P.W.-8 is Sanjay Kumar, who was the I.O of the
case. In his examination-in-chief he has deposed that on
13.09.2016 he got the charge of the investigation in Beur P.S.
Case No. 241 of 2016. This case has been lodged on the
fardbeyan of the Informant/Jayanti Jha. After taking charge he
received inquest report from P.M.C.H. The place of occurrence
as informed is Mithilanchal colony turning situated at the
distance of about 1.5 kilometer to the South of Beur police
station. The Mithilanchal Colony turning is adjacent to
Hasanpura road in Mithilanchal colony. To the North of the
place of occurrence lies two electric poles, vacant land filled
with water, to the South Beur-Hasanpura main road, to the East
One electric pole is without any wire and cemented road
Mithilanchal colony to the West and one house, Malvika-C18
Mithilanchal Colony at the distance of 35 meter facing East.
This road goes towards the house of the deceased. On the place
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
59/85
of the occurrence blood in huge quantity, sleepers, helmet and
empty cartridges were recovered and seized. Seizure list is
exhibit no.6. After inspection of the P.O., statement of Ram
Chandra Jha, Jayantrika Devi and Arti Devi were recorded.
Thereafter he reached P.M.C.H. and collected the pellets
recovered from the dead body of the deceased and sealed it in a
jar and kept it in police malkhana. The next day at 9:35 am,
police inspector and incharge of the police station came and
stated to him that the wife of the deceased was stating the Ajitwa
and Ranjitwa had killed her husband and she was getting
unconscious frequently and on account of her getting
unconscious frequently, her fardbeyan could not be recorded.
72. He has further deposed in his cross-examination
that during custody, confessional statement of Ranjit Kumar @
Bittu was recorded and at his instance, one 7.65 mm country
made pistol with two loaded cartridges in the magazine was
recovered from murgi farm and the same was seized. The
seizure list is exhibit no. 7 and on the basis of this seizure, Beur
P.S. Case No. 242 of 2016 was lodged on 15.09.2016 under
Section 25(1-B)a 26 of the Arms Act against the accused Ranjit
Kumar @ Bittu. On 16.09.2016 from 70 feet road, accused Ajay
Rai, Bhavya Prakash @ King and Vikky Kumar @ Vikky were
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
60/85
arrested with fire arms and cartridges and lodged Beur P.S. Case
No. 243 of 2016 on 16.09.2016. The seized pellets and
cartridges were sent to FSL, Patna for testing with permission of
the Court. On 08.10.2016 postmortem report was received. He
filed application for sending the black helmet. The helmet was
having hole on the back side. He received materials seized in
Beur P.S. Case No. 242 of 2016 and 243 of 2016 for testing. On
09.11.2016 the seized helmet, cartridges and pellets and arms
were sent to FSL for testing. The information regarding the
occurrence was received by him in the evening on 12.09.2016
when he was on patrolling duty. The information was received at
about 20.08 O’clock. But the case was not registered on the
basis of this information. Only Officer-in-Charge can explain
why the FIR was not registered. The FIR was registered on
12:15 O’ Clock on 13.09.2016. Copy of the FIR was sent to the
Judicial Magistrate on 14.09.2016. The Court is situated at the
travelling time of 20-25 minute by motorcycle or any other
vehicle. The reason for delay in sending the FIR to learned
Magistrate is not given in the diary. Ranjit Kumar @ Bittu was
not arrested but he had himself surrendered in the Court. The
arms was recovered at 23:00 O’ clock on 15.09.2016. The
witness to the seizure was passers-by, not local persons. Even
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
61/85
the context of seizure was not mentioned. On which date, Ranjit
Kumar @ Bittu had put his signatures on the seizure list is not
mentioned. The seized arms was not sealed on the place of
occurrence that was deposited in malkhana. But no M.R. No. of
malkhana was marked whereas in Beur Police Station,
malkhana, arms of various cases have been deposited. He has
denied the suggestion that no arms was recovered from murgi
farm at the instance of the accused, nor was any recovery made
in presence of the witnesses, nor seizure list was prepared and
false seizure list has been prepared in Police Station. Seizure list
on the place of occurrence was made at 08:25 PM and that
seizure list carries Beur P.S. Case No. 241 of 2016 whereas the
said FIR was lodged on the next date on 13.09.2016. He has
further deposed that the material seized from the place of
occurrence like empty cartridges, slipper and helmet were
handed over to him not in sealed condition. They were open.
FSL report has been received in regard to seized helmet which
was having hole. That report is not with him.
73. He has further deposed in his cross-examination
that during investigation, he examined only family members of
the deceased, because no independent witnesses were available.
He has not mentioned in the seizure list that slipper, helmet and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
62/85
cartridges having stain of blood. He ha not drawn site plan of the
place of occurrence. The road passing through the place of
occurrence is not a busy one. From the place of occurrence, the
house of the informant is visible. He is not aware whether the
malkhana of Beur Police Station maintains a register. He knows
that whenever any material is seized and deposited in malkhana,
it is entered into register with marking of M.R. number.
However, in the present case, there is no M.R. number and
malkhana mark on the article seized in this case. Whatever
articles were seized on the place of occurrence, were not sealed.
One Sanha was lodged in regard to statement of the informant
regarding her statement on the basis of her statement that Jitua
and Ranjitwa had killed her husband.
74. He has further deposed that the informant and her
son Rajan Chandra Jha had not given any statement before him
that they had seen the occurrence hiding behind a car.
75. He has further deposed that he had reached the
place of occurrence after 8 pm on 12.09.2016. He has not
mentioned in case diary that there was any electric light coming
from the electric pole. However, he has mentioned that he had
inspected the place of occurrence in torch light. No blood was
seized from the place of occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
63/85
76. He has also deposed that the informant had not
made any statement before him that at the place of occurrence
she requested the passers by to stop and help her and then
Aditya Kumar Jha came on motorcycle and with the help of
unknown motorcyclists her husband was taken to S.S. Hospital
and en-route, she had requested the police station to provide a
vehicle and S.S. Hospital had refused to admit her husband and
she took her husband to P.M.C.H. in auto rickshaw, where he
was declared dead. The informant had also not stated to him that
in January, 2015 the accused Ranjit, Bhola, Sukesh and others
had extended any threat. It was also not stated by the informant
to him that Ranjit had entered into the business of her husband
and on protest her husband got beaten by the house owner. The
informant had also not stated to him that Ranjit hatched
conspiracy to kill her husband and hired one criminal for Rs.5
lacs. The informant had also not stated to him that on the date of
the occurrence at about 6 pm, three persons namely, Ajay. Vikky
and King were doing reconnaissance around her house and she
gave information about it to her husband. She has also not stated
that she requested her husband to come at the earliest. The
informant has also not stated to him that on the date of the
occurrence at 7:26 her husband had informed on telephone that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
64/85
he was coming and she herself dialed at 7:36 and her husband
did nor receive his call and thereafter, she proceeded out from
the house in nighty. She had also not stated to the I.O. that from
the house of D.I.G, she saw crowd. She had also not stated that
the accused were killing her husband and she was seeing the
occurrence from the rear of the car. She had also not stated that
one 200 watt. bulb was burning and one golden chain and one
lac rupees were also taken away by the accused. The informant
had also not stated to him that prior to the occurrence, deadly
attacked on her husband and about that attack and about that
attack, information was given to the Police Station on
28.01.2015. The informant had also not stated to him that from
the site of house of DIG, she had seen crowd at mithilanchal
colony turning and electric light was burning on the second
storey of the house there. It is true that the place of occurrence is
a lonely place. The first information received at 20:08 O’ clock
on 12.09.2016 regarding the occurrence was that a man has
received gunshots at Mithila Colony, Hasanpura. The
deceased/Ram Chandra Jha was admitted in PMCH at 09:05 PM
where he was declared brought dead and the dead body was
received at 22:30 O’ clock on 12.09.2016. On 12.09.2016 when
he reached at the place of occurrence, he neither found the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
65/85
motorcycle, nor any white car. When he visited the place of
occurrence for the first time he had recorded the statement of
Arti Devi and even her signature was taken on her statement.
The specimen of the seal of the seized articles was not sent to
the FSL.
77. He has further deposed that Rajan Chandra Jha
had not stated to him that at 7:30 pm his mother had made phone
call to his father to come home soon because three persons were
doing reconnaissance and in response to which his father had
stated that he was coming and his mother again made call to his
father within 10-15 minutes. Rajan Chandra Jha has also not
stated to him that when he reached Mithilanchal colony road, he
saw crowd on the Mithilanchal Colony turning and they had
hidden behind a white coloured car wherefrom the crowd was at
the distance of 2-3 bamboo. Rajan Jah had also not stated to him
that the first gun shot was made by Rajan on the left chest of his
father and thereafter Rajan fired at the left shoulder and
thereafter Santosh, Ajay and Vicky fired on the left chest. Bhola
fired at the left arm and then Bhavya Prakash fired at the head
and Sukesh fired at the right elbow and Rohit fired at the palm
of the right hand. He had also not stated to him that there was
light in the adjoining house and there was light coming from the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
66/85
electric pole and he saw the occurrence in that light. He had also
not stated to him that his mother had first made call to police
station and then to his mausi, Arti Devi.
78. He has further deposed that The fardbeyan and the
FIR do not carry the name of Bhavya Prakash @ King. Even in
the re-statement, the informant had not taken the name of
Bhavya Prakash @ King and she had stated only herself as the
eye witness to the occurrence. Even during investigation besides
confessional statement, he could not get any material against
Bhavya Prakash @ King nor did he find any criminal incident of
the accused Bhavya Prakash @ King. The informant had not
given statement to him that Bhavya Prakash had fired at the
head of her husband, Ram Chandra Jha.
79. He has further deposed the the informant had also
not made statement to him that her son Rajan Chandra Jha was
also with her at the place of occurrence. It was also not stated to
him by the informant that after the gun shot, the helmet of Ram
Chandra Jha had fallen down, but the accused Bhavya Prakash
had re-put his helmet on his head. The informant had also not
stated to him that at 06:00 O’ clock in the evening, three
persons, viz., Ajay, Vikky and King were doing reconnaissance
around her house. Rajan Chandra Jha had not stated to him that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
67/85
Bhavya Prakash had fired at the head of his father.
80. P.W.-9 is Dhirender Kumar, who was posted as
Police Inspector cum In-charge of Police Station on 15.09.2016.
He had recorded the confessional statement of the accused
Ranjit Kumar @ Bittu and at his instance, as per the testimony,
he recovered loaded pistol of 7.65 mm from murgi farm in the
presence of two passers-by. He does not remember whether the
recovered arms was sealed at the place of recovery or not. He
does not remember even the date and time of the recording of
his confessional statement. He does not remember even the
witnesses in the presence of whom, his confessional statement
was recorded. The arms was recovered from bush. He brought
the arms at the Police Station and deposited in malkhana. He
does not remember whether malkhana number was given on the
deposited arms. He had sealed the seized arms at Police Station.
However, he does not remember how it was sealed. He also does
not remember whether signature of Ranjit Kumar @ Bittu was
taken on the paper which was tested on the arms. He had not put
his signature on the seizure list.
81. P.W.-10 is Nayan Ojha, who was Assistant
Director, FSL, Patna. He has testified regarding testing of the
seized articles and cartridges and the helmet. Regarding the hole
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
68/85
in the helmet, he has deposed that there was no sign of burning
around that hole. There was not even sign of crack around the
hole on the helmet. He has denied the suggestion that the articles
which were sent to FSL for testing, were not seized in the
present case.
82. P.W.-11 is Viswambhar Prasad, who was a Sub
Inspector, posted at Beur Police Station on 16.09.2016. He was
Investigating Officer of Beur P.S. Case No. 242 of 2016. In his
examination-in-chief, he has deposed that the arms were seized
from the broken pipe adjoining the road situated to the west of
the murgi farm.
83. P.W. 12 is Uday Kumar Singh, who is Sergeant
Major. He was posted at the New Police Centre, Patna on
01.10.2016. He is a witness who had tested the efficacy of the
arms which was seized in Beur P.S. Case No. 242 of 2016.
84. P.W.13 is Das Ashok Kumar, who had put his
counter signature on the FSL Report regarding the articles
seized in the case.
85. P.W. 14 is Dhananjay Kumar Singh, who has
prepared the inquest report of the deceased, Ram Chandra Jha at
the Emergency Ward, P.M.C.H. In his examination-in-chief he
has deposed that the dead body was received at 10:30 pm on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
69/85
12.09.2016 and the inquest was prepared by him at 10:05 am on
13.09.2016. There is no mention of FIR number in the inquest
report. Because it was prepared prior to the lodging of the FIR.
86. P.W. 15 is Devendra Kumar Singh, who is the ASI
posted at P.M.C.H. on 13.09.2016. He had recorded the
fardbeyan of the informant of Beur P.S. Case No. 241 of 2016 at
10:30 am on 13.09.2016.
87. P.W.-16 is Devendra Kumar Jha, who had brought
certified copy of the sanha no. 432 of 2016, 453 of 2016, 381 of
2016 and 386 of 2016.
Defence Evidence
88. Now coming to the witnesses examined by the
accused in their defence, we find that D.W. 1 is Prashant
Kumar Singh. He is a witness in support of plea of alibi as
taken by the accused, Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu. In his
examination-in-chief he has deposed that at the alleged time of
occurrence, Ranjeet Kumar was at Ranchi in regard to sale-
purchase of land. He has also deposed that he a dealer in sale-
purchase of land and Ranjeet Kumar is also a such dealer and on
12.09.2016, Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu had gone to Ranchi to see
one land along with two customers by the Patna-Ranchi Train
and they had reached Ranchi at 3:00 pm. He had taken those
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
70/85
persons towards Ranchi ring road to see the land and they
returned Patna via. Patna-Hatiya train which starts at 7:00 pm.
In his cross-examination he has deposed that the land which
they had seen belongs to Baliram Sahoo.
89. D.W.-2 is Ajit Kumar, who has also deposed in
support of plea of alibi taken by Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu. In his
examination-in-chief he has deposed that in the evening on
12.09.2016, he had gone to Chitkohra market. Mithilanchal
Colony turning lies on the way from chitkohra market to his
village because it is close to his village. On that turning he had
reached at 7:45 pm while returning from the market and saw 4-5
persons doing altercation on account of which the road was
getting blocked. He stopped and started seeing for about half an
hour. He stayed there. But he did not find Ranjeet Kumar there.
During that stay, he did not hear any sound of firing. He did not
see any motorcycle or car standing there. There was no light on
the electric pole. In his cross-examination he has deposed that
he could not identify the persons who had assembled at the
Mithilanchal Colony turning and entering into altercation.
Appreciation of Evidence and Findings of this Court
90. From perusal of the prosecution evidence, we find
that out of total 16 witnesses, six witnesses – P.W.-1, P.W.-2,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
71/85
P.W.-3. P.W.-4. P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 are non-official witnesses and
all are closely related with the deceased Ramchandra Jha. Rest
witnesses are official witnesses.
91. We further find that out of six non-official
witnesses, two witnesses – P.W.-1 Jayanti Jha (informant) and
P.W.-6, Rajan Chandra Jha, (son of the informant and deceased)
have claimed to be eye witnesses and rest non-official witnesses
are post occurrence witnesses.
92. Out of official witnesses, P.W.-5 is the Doctor who
conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the
deceased Ram Chandra Jha; P.W.-9 is Officer-in-Charge of Beur
Police Station who recorded the confessional statement of
appellant Ranjit Kumar; P.W.10 is FSL expert; P.W.-11 is the
informant of Beur P.S. Case No. 242 of 2016; P.W.- 12 is
Seargent Major who tested the efficasy of “seized arms”; P.W.-
13 is also an Officer of the Patna FSL Laboratory; P.W.-14 is the
Police Officer who prepared the inquest report of the deceased
Ram Chandra Jha; P.W.-15 is Police officer who recorded the
fardbeyan of the informant of Beur P.S. Case No. 241 of 2016
and P.W. – 16 is formal witness of certified copy of Sanha.
93. We further find that there is no dispute regarding
post occurrence facts and circumstances. The deceased Ram
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
72/85
Chandra Jha has died of firearm injuries as per P.W.-5 Dr.
Sanjay Kumar who conducted postmortem examination on his
dead-body finding 12 holes including 10 entry wounds and 2
exit wounds on his body and had opined that the cause of death
was haemorrhage and shock caused by firearm injuries. It is also
not in dispute that from Mithilanchal colony More situated in
Beur Police Station, the deceased was taken to S.S. Hospital
from he was taken to PMCH by the informant and Aditya
Kumar Jha (P.W.-4) who is son of sister of the informant. It is
also not in dispute that the deceased Ramchandra Jha was
admitted in PMCH on the same day i.e. on 12.09.2016 at at
9:05 O’clock in the evening and he was declared brought dead.
It is further found that the inquest report was prepared on the
next day at 10:05 O’clock in the morning and Fardbeyan of the
informant (P.W.-1) was subsequently recorded after 25 minutes
at 10:30 A.M. and formal FIR was lodged at 12:15 O’clock in
the afternoon on the same day i.e. on 13.09.2016. The
postmortem was commenced at 12:30 P.M. on 13.09.2016.
94. We further found that only dispute is regarding
who has killed the victim Ramchandra Jha.
95. In this regard, we find that only P.W.-1 Jyanti Jha
(wife/informant) and P.W.-6 Rajan Jha, (son of the deceased)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
73/85
who are projected to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. Other
witnesses are only hearsay witnesses regarding the assailants of
the victim Ramchandra Jha. Needless to say that hearsay
evidence has no evidentiary value. Refer to the following
judicial precedents in this regard:
(i) Neeraj Datta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2003) 4 SCC 731
(ii) Rajendra Prabhu Chikane and Anr. Vs. State
of Maharashtra and Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 511
96. We further found that the appellants have strongly
disputed the presence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-6, on the place of
occurrence, have claimed that they have been falsely implicated
by the informant on the basis of suspicion arising out of enmity.
97. It is in the aforesaid context, we require to
appreciate the evidence of P.W-1 and P.W.-6 with care and
caution to find out whether the appellants have caused the death
of the victim Ram Chandra Jha.
98. From careful perusal of the testimony of P.W.-1,
Jayanti Jha, who is wife of the deceased and informant of the
case, that her testimony is full of material contradictions and
improvements. In her detailed Fardbeyan, she has not stated
that her son (P.W.-6) was also along with her at the place of
occurrence. In her Fardbeyanb, she has also deposed that after
seeing the firing being done by the appellants at her husband,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
74/85
she started shouting loudly and informed the Police by her
Mobile. But subsequently, in her examination-in-chief, she has
deposed that she did not shout for fear of being killed. She also
developed her statement by deposing that she was seeing the
firing from rear of a car along with her son (P.W.-6). In her
testimony, she further introduced the story of electric light at the
time of occurrence coming from electric pole. However, as per
the I.O., the Police had not found any electric bulb or a car
around the place of occurrence. Moreover, when the police
reached the place of occurrence within few minutes of the
occurrence, she inspected the P.O. in torch light. Even P.W.-2,
Arti Devi (Sister of Informant) has also deposed that the police
after arrival at the P.O. inspected the P.O. in torch light.
99. We further find that the informant (P.W.-1) in her
fardbeyan has not stated anything about reconnaissance of her
house by three appellants and her talk with her husband before
the occurrence and reaching the place of occurrence in that
context. But in her examination-in-chief, she has introduced a
story of reconnaissance of her house by three appellants and her
talk with her husband. We further also find that making
improvement of her statement in examination-in-chief, she has
deposed that after reaching the place of occurrence, she went
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
75/85
behind the car lying in the vicinity of the place of occurrence
and started watching the occurrence, whereas, as per her own
testimony, when she reached the place of occurrence, the
occurrence was not taking place. Her husband, as per her own
testimony, arrived at the P.O. by his motorcycle when she had
already arrived and hid in the rear of the white car lying in the
close vicinity. But where was occasion for her to hide herself
behind the car in advance of the occurrence?
100. In her testimony before the court, she has also
deposed that when the assailants were shooting at her husband,
she did not go near her husband to protect him. She did not even
cry for help, nor did she request the assailants not to kill. It is
very hard to believe such reaction of a wife seeing her husband
being killed in front of her.
101. We also found that the I.O. in his testimony has
clearly deposed that the informant had not stated before him
regarding electric light coming from the electric pole at the
place of occurrence. As per further testimony of the I.O., the
informant had also not stated to him regarding the
reconnaissance of her house by three appellants and her talk
with her husband. She had also not stated to the I.O. that she
was seeing the occurrence from behind the car standing in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
76/85
vicinity. She had also not stated to him that 200 watt electric
bulb was burning at the place of occurrence. She had also not
stated to the I.O. that her son Rajan Chandra Jha (P.W.-6) was
also along with her at the place of occurrence.
102. The aforesaid material contradiction and
improvements in the testimony of the informant (P.W.-1) renders
her untrustworthy witness. It is very difficult for this Court to
believe her and act upon her testimony.
103. Even, P.W.-6 who has been projected as eye
witness is also not reliable and trustworthy. He was about 10-13
years old at the time of occurrence and at the time of his
deposition, he was about 15 years old. As such, he was child.
But before his deposition, the learned Trial Court has not tested
his deposing capacity as required under Section 118 of the
Evidence Act. So in the absence of any certificate of learned
Trial Court that P.W.-6 was competent to depose, his testimony
could not be relied upon. Moreover, his presence at the place of
occurrence is highly doubtful. His mother who is informant had
not stated of his presence along with her in her fardbeyan. His
reaction to the occurrence makes his presence at the P.O.
doubtful. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had
not raised any hulla while seeing the occurrence and he had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
77/85
gone to the place of occurrence silently and he returned to his
home silently also silently He did not cry when his father was
being killed by the assailants. He did not even, tell anybody
about the occurrence. It is very hard to believe such conduct of
the child when his father was being killed in front of him.
104. The I.O. (P.W-8) has also deposed that even
P.W-6, Rajan Chandra Jha had not stated to him that at 7:30 his
mother had made any phone call to his father to come home at
the earliest because three persons were doing reconnaissance
and in response to which his father had stated that he was
coming and his mother again made a call to his father within 10-
15 minutes. P.W.-6, Rajan Chandra Jha has also not stated to the
I.O. that when he reached Mithilanchal Colony road he saw
crowd at the Mithilanchal Colony turning and he along with his
mother had hidden behind the white colour car.
105. It appears to us that P.W.-1 and P.W.-6 have not
seen the occurrence taking place. They reached the place of
occurrence after hearing the sound of firing. Their house is
situated within the range of hearing of sound of firing from
place of occurrence. Their house is situated in close vicinity of
the place of occurrence. Such belief is reinforced by the
testimony of P.W.-3, Jayntrika Devi, mother of the deceased
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
78/85
who came out from her house after hearing the sound of firing.
The house of P.W.-3 is also situated near the house of the
informant. Only 3-4 houses are there in between her house and
the house of the informant (P.W.-1) and P.W.-6. As such, even
P.W.-1 and P.W.-6 have not seen the occurrence, but on account
of suspicion arising out of previous enmity with the appellants,
the informant has named the appellants in her fardbeyan.
106. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, the
delay in lodging FIR and that too after inquest report and the
delay in transmission of the FIR to jurisdictional Magistrate
assume importance. The occurrence had taken place at around
8:00 P.M. on 12.09.2016. At 9:05 P.M., the victim was admitted
in P.M.C.H and declared brought dead. Inquest was made at
10:05 A.M. on 13.09.2016. Fardbeyan was recorded at 10:30
A.M. on 13.09.2016 and FIR was lodged at 12:15 P.M. on
13.09.2016.
107. The only explanation coming from the I.O.
regarding delay in recording of fardbeyan and lodging the FIR is
that the informant was frequently getting unconscious. But as
per testimony of the informant herself, it clearly transpires that
after the occurrence, she was actively participating in carrying
her injured husband from the place of occurrence to S.S.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
79/85
Hospital and from S.S. Hospital to PMCH and during this
period, there is not even whisper regarding the informant getting
unconscious. She was fully conscious and active and she had
even informed the police on her mobile just after the occurrence
and police had even reached the place of occurrence and
inspected the P.O. and even recorded the statement of P.W.-02
Aarti Devi who is sister of the informant and as per testimony of
P.W.-2, she had given a detailed statement to the police
regarding occurrence and the accused and even she had signed
her statement which could have been treated as fardbeyan.
Moreover, prior to such statement of P.W.-2, we also find that as
per testimony of P.W.-1, she had given detailed information
about the occurrence and the accused to the police immediately
after the occurrence. But all these statements of P.W.-2 and P.W.-
1,which are first versions are withheld by the police. As such,
the police has not recorded the fardbeyan at the earliest
opportunity, ruling out possibility of concoction and
embellishment by consultation and deliberation. The possibility
of concoction and embellishment of the fardbeyan is further
reinforced by the fact that the FIR was lodged subsequent to
preparation of the inquest report. The informant and the police
had become well aware of the detailed injuries received by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
80/85
victim. Such detailed graphic description of injuries received by
the deceased was also not possible as per the facts and
circumstances of the case. Such suspicion is strengthened by the
testimony of the informant also. As per her testimony, her
husband was surrounded by the assailants from all directions
and she was watching the occurrence from some distance from
rear of the car. As such, it was not possible for her to see the
exact injuries being caused by the appellants to the victim, more
so, when the occurrence had taken place in dark night with no
electric light there.
108. In this context, delay in transmission of the FIR
to the Judicial Magistrate also assumes importance. The Beur
police station is in close vicinity of the Court, as per testimony
of the I.O. himself. It would take only 20-25 minutes by vehicle
to reach the court from the police station. But, despite this fact,
the FIR which was lodged at 12:05 P.M on 13.09.2016, was not
sent to the Jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day. It was sent
to the Magistrate on the next day.
109. In view of the delay in lodging the FIR and
transmitting the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate after one
day and preparation of the inquest report prior to recording the
fardbeyan and lodging the FIR, the prosecution version of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
81/85
occurrence as emerging from the fardbeyan loses its verasity and
authenticity. It becomes highly doubtful.
110. It is also pertinent to note that as per testimony of
P.W.-1 (informant herself), her husband Ramchandra Jha was a
land broker and contractor, besides being a shopkeeper. He had
also enmity with persons other than the appellants. Her husband
had lodged one criminal complaint bearing No. 21004 of 2014
against Lalbabu Keshri and others and one criminal complaint
bearing No. 20788 of 2014 against Ajit Kumari Mishra. One
Beur P.S. Case No. 76 of 2012 was also lodged against her
husband. Siddharth Keshri and Shakti Kumar had also filed two
criminal cases each against her husband and in one criminal case
lodged by Siddharth Keshri, her husband was even sent to jail.
111. Even the recovery and seizure of the arms from
the appellant, Ranjeet Kumar @ Bittu is doubtful in Beur P.S.
Case No. 242 of 2016. As per P.W.-9, the arms were recovered
from the bush, whereas P.W.-11 has deposed that the arms were
seized from the broken pipe adjoining the road situated to the
West of the murgi farm. Moreover, as per P.W.-8, Sanjay Kumar,
the arms was not sealed at the place of occurrence, whereas, as
per the testimony of P.W.-9, Dhirendra Kumar, the arms were
sealed at the police station, but signature was not put on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
82/85
seizure list by the seazing officer. As per further testimony of
P.W.-8, Sanjay Kumar, the seized arms were deposited in
malkhana without any M.R. number of malkhana on the arms
despite the fact that in the police station malkhana, arms of
several other cases were deposited. P.W.-8 has also deposed that
even empty cartridges and helmet were not in sealed condition.
112. In Amarjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1995
Supp (3) SCC 217, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that
non sealing of the revolver at the spot is a serious infirmity
because the possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot be
ruled out.
113. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the Prosecution case regarding recovery of arms from the
appellant Ranjit @ Bittu becomes highly doubtful
114. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
we find that there are serious reasonable doubts in the
prosecution case against the appellants. We have no option but
to give benefit of doubt to the appellants and set aside the
impugned judgment of conviction and orders of sentence.
115. Hence, all the appeals are allowed, setting aside
the impugned judgment of conviction and orders of sentence,
acquitting all the Appellants of all the charges.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
83/85
116. The appellants are already on bail. They are
discharged from their liability of their bail bonds.
Compensation to the victims
117. Though the appellants have been acquitted by
giving benefit of doubts, the commission of the crime has been
proved by the evidence on record. Deceased Ramchandra Jha
was done to death by firearm injuries and he is survived by his
widow Jayanti Jha who is informant herein and his one minor
son, namely, Rajan Chandra Jha and two minor daughters
namely, Surya Kiran and Roshni Kiran. Hence, there is no
dispute that the informant and their minor children are victims in
terms of Section 2(wa) Cr.PC as per which victim includes legal
heirs of the deceased. The widow has lost not only consortium
of her husband but even her dependency on him. The minor
children have lost their father losing not only love and affection
of their father but even their dependency upon him. Hence, the
widow and her three minor children deserve succour from the
State who has failed to protect the fundamental right of the
deceased to live. Hence, all four victims are entitled to
compensation as per Bihar Victims Compensation Scheme, 2014
as made under Section 357A Cr.PC and as per the Scheme as
stands after amendment in 2018, minimum and maximum
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
84/85
compensation to a victim for loss of life is Rs.2,00,000/- and
Rs.3,00,000/- respectively.
118. However, as per statement of the widow of the
deceased Ramchandra Jha, she has got only Rs.1,50,000/-
towards compensation from Patna District Legal Services
Authority in compliance of the order of learned Trial Court
dated 16.03.2021, whereas minimum compensation provided
under the scheme is Rs. 2,00,000/-. As such, there is error
apparent on face of the record while paying compensation to the
victims by DLSA, Patna. In any case, the quantum of the
compensation has to be above Rs 2,00,000/. Moreover, the
compensation scheme is a benevolent legislation. The concerned
authority should not be shy to pay the maximum quantum of
compensation as provided in the scheme, particularly in view of
the fact that the quantum of compensation was fixed long back
in 2018. Hence, we find that adequate compensation has not
been provided to the victims as per the Scheme. Secretary, Bihar
State Legal Services Authority, Patna is, therefore, directed to
look into the matter and pay adequate compensation to the
victims as per the Bihar Victims Compensation Scheme, 2014 as
amended in 2018. A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary,
BSLSA, Patna for needful.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2021 dt.30-09-2024
85/85
119. Before we part with the appeals, we must
appreciate the assistance provided by learned Amicus Curiae
Ms. Surya Nilambari on behalf of the informant. Secretary,
Patna High Court Legal Services committee is directed to pay
Rs.15,000/- to learned Amicus Curiae towards honorarium.
120. The records of the case be returned to the Trial
Court forthwith.
121. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
I agree.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J.) Ravishankar/S.Ali /Chandan/Shoaib AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 11.09.2024 Uploading Date 30.09.2024 Transmission Date 30.09.2024