Vijay Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar

Dharnidhar Jha, J.—In spite of having waited for the counsel for the appellants, no one turns up. Lastly we heard Shri Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who appears on behalf of the State, and perused the record and proceeded to pass the present judgment.

The two appellants were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 1988 by judgment dated 6th of July, 1991 of committing offence under Sections 302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Ram Chandra Bin was held distinctly guilty of committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and both the appellants were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

The case related to the murder of Bishwanath Sah father of P.W. 3 Lallan Sah the informant of the case. It was stated that the deceased was sitting in a chair at his Darwaza and the informant was feeding his oxen. It was 09:00 p.m. and a lantern was left burning on a table. Lakshmi Sah P.W. 2 was also sitting with the deceased and was talking to him when the accused persons came there all of a sudden and called out the deceased by his name and after Vijay Kumar Singh had stated that it was Bishwanath Sah and that he be killed, the two accused persons Gauri Bin and Ramchandra Bin fired shot from their respective DBBL guns. Deceased Bishwanath Sah slumped onto the ground and died.

P.W. 2 Lakshmi Sah did support the prosecution story that Bishwanath Sah was murdered, but stated that he did not identify any of the assailants of the deceased. As regards P.W. 3 the informant he came in support of his story and claimed to have identified the accused persons in the light of the lantern. The lantern was not produced nor the Investigating Officer was examined. The informant himself admitted that it was a pitch dark night. We are of the opinion that visibility was not possible without light. The further evidence of the informant was that as soon as he heard the gun shot he fled from there to conceal himself in a plantain orchard and remained there for about 40 minutes and came out only when his family members had arrived at the scene of occurrence. After considering the evidence of P.W. 3 Lallan Sah what we find is that there is doubt that he could have identified the accused persons. Sumari Devi the mother of the informant and wife of the deceased and other witnesses like P.W. 5 Bal Kishun Sah and others did not identify any of the accused persons.

This is the gist of evidence of the case.

We have already noted that the Investigating Officer had not been produced the most competent witness Lakshmi Sah who was sitting by the very side of the deceased did not identify any of the assailants of Bishwanath Sah. P.W. 2 Lakshmi Sah stated that in fact he had not seen any of the accused persons coming in spite of the lantern being kept on the table. As regards the distance between the deceased and P.W. 3 the informant Lallan Sah he stated in his evidence that it was about 12 feet away from him where his father was sitting. This evidence is available in the very 3rd line of the examination-in-chief of P.W. 3 and it appears, as we have noted, that it was pitch dark at the time of occurrence as appears from paragraph 24 of P.W. 3. It further appears from paragraph 26 that no sooner he had heard the sound of gun shot, he went inside the plantain orchard to hid himself and he remained there for about 20 minutes concealing himself (P.W. 3 paragraph- 25). Thus, there appears a probability that he could not have identified the accused persons. We have already noted that the non-production of the lantern and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer further puts it in doubt that there was any source of light at the scene of occurrence.

P.W. 3 has admitted in paragraph 34 that there was serious enmity between appellant Shankar Singh for the last six years of the occurrence and there had been some other incidents also, case in respect of which was already pending. It appears that it was out of sheer suspicion that the accused persons were named in the First Information Report.

In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The two appellants are acquitted, after being given benefit of doubt, of the charges they had been found guilty of. The two appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.