Prasad Thakur & ANR Vs. Ramchandra Singh , Bishwanath Rai & Ors 
INSC 706 (3 September
NANAVATI, S. P. KURDUKAR
Mr. justice G.T. Nanavati Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Kurdukar A.K. Jha, Pankaj Kalra,
S.K. Singh, B.K. Sharma and Vijay Kumar, advs. for the appellants R.K. Jain,
K.D. Prasad, A.N. Bardiyar and M.P. Jha, Advs. with him for the respondents.
following Judgment of the Court was delivered.
of Bihar V. Bishwanath Rai & Ors. WITH CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 393 OF 1986
three appeals, first two by the State of Bihar and the other by injured witness
Ramesh Prasad Thakur and Shanti Devi widow of deceased, Bacha Thakur, are
directed against there judgement and order of acquittal dated 4th September, 1985 passed by the Patna High Court in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 506 and 569 of 1981.
many as 16 accused were tried for the murder of Bacha Thakur and for causing
injuries to Ram Prasad Thakur and Chandra Mohan Thakur. The trial Court acquitted
accused Nos. 13 to 16. It held that the other accused had formed an unlawful
assembly and in prosecution of their common object, caused the death of Bacha Thakur.
Ram Chandra Singh, one of the respondents in these appeals was convicted under
Section 302 IPC and others were convicted under Section 302 read with Section
149 IPC. They were also convicted under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC.
Accused Nos.2 to 12 challenged their conviction and sentence by preferring
criminal Appeal No. 506 of 1981 and Ram Chandra Singh did so by preferring a
separate appeal, viz., Criminal Appeal No.
1981 in the Patna High Court. Both the appeals were
heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. The High Court allowed
both the appeals and acquitted the accuse.
State feeling aggrieved applied for special leave of this Court to appeal
against all the 12 accused who were convicted by the trial Court but acquitted
by the High Court. This Court, however, Injured witness, Ramesh Prasad Thakur
and Shanti Devi, widow of deceased Bacha Thakur have filed Criminal Appeal No.
393 of 1986, with leave of this Court against the acquittal of accused No. 1,
Ram Chandra Singh only.
order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined 8 eye-witnesses. The
trial Court found them reliable but though their evidence was consistent, on reappreciation
of the entire evidence, the High Court considered it unsafe to rely upon their
evidence. It held that (i) their evidence is not consistent with the medical
evidence regarding the injury caused to the deceased: (ii) all eye-witnesses
belong to village Patahi which is at a distance of 3 kms. from Muzaffarpur town
where the incident took place and their explanation for their presence near the
place of occurrence is not convincing; (iii) the fard-bayan though stated to
have been recorded at 11.30 p.m. was possibly not recorded till 2.00 p.m. on
the next day; and (iv) the eye-witness have suppressed the real manner in which
the incident took place as they have failed to explain how a serious injury was
received by one of the accused, Ram Nath prasad Gupta. The learned counsel for
the appellants challenged the finding recorded by the High Court that the fard-bayan
of injured witness, Ramesh Prasad Singh was not recorded till 2.00 P.m. on the Next day. as incorrect. On scrutiny of the
evidence of Ram Jiwan Singh (PW-13), Sub- Inspector of police who had recorded
the fard-bayan, the Deputy Superintendent of police (PW-16) and the
Superintendent of Police (DW-1) and also the Injury Certificate (Exh.4) of Ramesh
Prasad Thakur and the fard- bayan (Exh.A) of accused, Ram Nath Gupta @ Mohan
Prasad Gupta, we find that the fard-bayan of injured witness, Ramesh Prasad Thakur
was really recorded at about 11.30 p.m.
24.5.1977. The fard-bayan of injured witness, Ramesh Prasad Thakur was really
recorded at about 11.30
p.m. on 24.5.1977. The
fard-bayan which was recorded between 8.00 a.m. and 2.00 P.M. on recorded by the High Court is
thus clearly wrong. However, we find no substance in the other contentions
raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It was submitted that the
evidence of eye- witness being consistent, ought to have been accepted by the
high Court. What the High Court has pointed out is that though the evidence of
the eye-witness appears to be consistent inter-se, is not consistent with the
real manner in which the incident had taken place. Even though the eye-
witnesses have deposed that two shots were fired by accused Ram Chandra Singh
and both had caused injuries to the deceased, the evidence of the doctor is
that they were possibly caused by only on shot. All the eye-witnesses have
stated that accused Ram Chandra Singh had fired two shots from his revolver
from a distance of about 6 to 9 feet. The medical evidence shows that there was
blackening around the wounds. This Circumstance indicates that in all
probability, the injuries were caused to the deceased with a different type of
weapon. As regards the injuries of PW-4 Chandra Mohan, the eye-witnesses have
stated that they were caused by three of the accused with pharsas and lathis
but the medical evidence discloses that he had not received a single injury
which could have been caused by a pharsa. Realising this inconsistency, all the
witnesses have made an identical improvement in their evidence by stating that
he was assaulted by accused Chandresh Rai with back portion of his pharsa. Thus
they have made a deliberate attempt to change their version to make it
consistent with the medical evidence. Moreover, as rightly observed by the High
Court, all the eye-witnesses are residents of village Patahi and they belong to
the rival political party. so also, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel
for the had attacked the deceased and the persons with him, then others could
not have escaped unhurt and the two injured would have received more injuries.
The two injured had received three injuries each but they were minor injuries.
None of them was caused by a weapon with a sharp edge.
High Court after taking into consideration all these aspects found it unsafe to
rely upon the evidence of eye-witnesses. Once it found that the eye-witnesses
had not given the correct account of the manner in which the incident had taken
place, the High Court was justified in discarding their evidence even though it
was otherwise consistent. The learned counsel for the appellants could not
point out any infirmity in the other findings recorded by the high Court.
therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the
High Court and accordingly dismiss these appeals. Bail bonds are ordered to be