JAGDISH BIND Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS of the case are tell -a -tale. Allegedly, while Kailash Singh, Constable No. 188 was on traffic duty along with Madhav Singh, constable No. 112 (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) on National Highway, below Rajendra Bridge, on occasion of fare, he noticed Jagdish Bind (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) and Nagendra Singh, collecting unauthorised toll from the vehicles, and shortly after they reached there, they began to flee, and one of them namely, Nagendra Singh fired shot on him but he had providential escape. It was alleged that the deceased, however, apprehended him, who sought assistance from the Appellant exhorting him to open fire for his release from custody. It was alleged that the Appellant thereafter acting on exhortation, shot dead Madhav Singh, the deceased, who instantaneously on receipt of firearm injuries, dropped there. The Police and public who thronged to the place of occurrence, on alarms raised by Kailash Singh, apprehended Nagendra Singh, while the Appellant had made good his escape, and with these accusations, fardbeyan of Kailash Singh (P.W. 7) was recorded at 4 P.M. on 17.11.1995, pursuant to which investigation commenced. During investigation, Police Officer entrusted with the onerous task of investigation, visited place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, held inquest over the dead body and also got autopsy held by the doctor, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court.

(2.) IN the eventual trial that followed, the State examined altogether 9 witnesses, who are Police Officers, who were on duty on the site at material time of incident, those who happened to be the witnesses of seizure memo, prepared by the Police Officer, and also two doctors, who were associated with post mortem held over the dead body of the deceased.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant in his anxiety to assail the findings recorded by the Court below, urged that since Kailash Singh (P.W. 7) alone happens to be ocular witness to the killing of the deceased, allegedly by the Appellant, in absence of corroboration from any quarter, it was quite hazardous to place implicit reliance on solitary testimony of the witness, when the Appellant had been booked for such a serious and heinous offence. Non -examination of other Police personnel including Ganga Singh, who too was suggested to be the ocular witness, having thronged at the place of occurrence was also highlighted at Bar to disbelieve solitary witness and for his exclusion from zone of consideration. While commenting on the credibility of Kailash Singh (P.W. 7) conten tions are raised that on his own showing, the deceased happened to be his cousin brother -in -law and in that backdrop too, solitary testimony of Kailash Singh (P.W. 7) did not deserve credence, he being highly interested witness to espouse the cause of death of the deceased. Non -examination of the Investigating Officer, there being no evidence about collection of blood which was shown to be copious at the place of occurrence, and also there being no document to suggest seizure of empty shells and cartridges, was other ground on which finding recorded by the court below was criticised at Bar. Failure of Ramagya Choudhary (P.W. 8) to identify the Appellant in dock with some vehemence, was criticised to persuade the Court to disbelieve this witness about his presence at the place of occurrence at material time of incident, and majority of witnesses turning volte face to the State was also made eloquent to disbelieve even those who had shown their familiarity with the incident. A brief analysis of the narrations made by the witnesses would be apt for appreciation of contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant and without going into much details, we wish to discuss them with brevity.