PATNA, India, July 1 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on June 27:

The present appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 20.09.2016 and 26.09.2016 respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No.66 of 1997 (arising out of Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No.191 of 1995) by the learned Court of 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial Judge"). By the said judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2016, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof, the appellant has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. The short facts of the case are that on 09.07.1995 at 02:00 a.m., the fardbeyan of the informant, namely Surendra Prasad Sah was recorded by the ASI of Jalalpur Police Station, namely Mr. G. S. Chaubey. In his fardbeyan, Surendra Prasad Sah (hereinafter referred to as the "informant") has stated that on 08.07.1995, day-Saturday, at about 06:00 p.m. in the evening, Ashok Singh, Manoj Singh and Rakesh Singh (appellant) had arrived at the betel shop of the informant and had plucked Tiranga (Gutkha) hanging at the shop, which was objected to by the elder brother of the informant, namely Ram Mangal Prasad (deceased), whereupon Ashok Singh had ordered to pull out the deceased from the shop and kill him, whereafter Manoj Singh and Rakesh Singh (appellant) had caught hold of the elder brother of the informant and had pulled him out from inside the shop, whereupon they had said as to how he dared to ask for money from them. The informant has further stated that Manoj Singh had then caught hold of his brother from behind and then, Rakesh Singh (appellant) had taken out a dagger from his pocket and had given a dagger blow on the chest of his brother as also had turned the dagger, whereafter Rakesh Singh had inflicted a second dagger blow on the chest of his brother and had again turned the knife, whereupon the informant had raised an alarm and when he came out of the shop, he saw that covillagers, namely Ram Dayal Chaudhary (PW-7), Moti Chand Sah (PW-1), Hulas Ram (PW-4) and Din Dayal Ram (PW-2) had arrived there, who were present nearby. Thereafter, all the accused persons had pushed the brother of the informant on the ground in front of the shop and had also chased them to assault them, whereupon they had started running away, however several co-villagers had arrived there, leading to the accused persons fleeing away. It is further stated by the informant that he then saw his brother soaked in blood as also he was wriggling in pain and had died instantly since lot of blood had flown out. The informant has further stated that it is his belief that the accused persons, with the intention of killing his brother had pulled him out of the shop and inflicted dagger blow on his chest. The informant had signed the fardbeyan upon the same having been read over to him and he having understand the same, in presence of witness, namely Dilip Kumar, who had also signed the said fardbeyan.

3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan of the informant, a formal FIR bearing Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No.191 of 1995 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC against Ashok Singh, Manoj Singh and Rakesh Singh (appellant) on 09.07.1995 at 11:30 a.m. After investigation and finding the case to be true qua the appellant and one Manoj Singh, chargesheet was submitted by the police on 07.02.1996 under Section 302/34 of the IPC, however, Ashok Singh was not sent up for trial. The learned Magistrate had then taken cognizance vide order dated 19.02.1996 qua Manoj Singh and Rakesh Singh (appellant), however, the final form pertaining to Ashok Singh was accepted. The case was committed to the court of sessions on 28.01.1997, whereafter it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 66 of 1997. The learned Trial Court had then framed charges under Section 302/34 of the IPC on 08.06.2001 against Manoj Singh and Rakesh Singh (appellant) to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses. PW-1 Moti Chand Sah, PW-2 Din Dayal Ram, PW-4 Hulash Ram, PW-5 Rudal Singh and PW-8 Dharamnath Manjhi, though are independent witnesses, but have been declared hostile. PW-3 Sudarshan Sah, PW-6 Surendra Prasad Sah (Informant) and PW-7 Ram Dayal Chaudhary are stated to be eye witnesses. PW-9 Dr. Ram Iqbal Prasad is the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased-Ram Mangal Prasad, while PW-10 Suresh Kumar and PW-11 Sravan Kr. Singh are advocate clerks, who have proved the formal FIR, the inquest report and the seizure list of blood-soaked mud as is depicted in the case-diary.

5. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, assisted by Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate has submitted that the documents exhibited during the course of trial should be original, however in the present case only photocopy of the postmortem report has been exhibited, hence the same is not required to be looked into. In this regard, reference has been made to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2010) 6 SCC 1, para nos. 170 to 172 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

"170. It was pointed out by the State that the said report of Rup Singh is inadmissible in law since it is a photocopy and, therefore, does not fall within the purview of a report in terms of Section 293 of the Code. In other words, in terms of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act unless the original document is placed for the scrutiny of the court, no reliance can be placed on the photocopy without leading proper secondary evidence in this regard. In any case, both Section 293 and Section 294 of the Code which dispense with formal proof of documents under certain circumstances make it abundantly clear that the documents sought to be relied upon must be the originals.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSMxMjE1IzIwMTYjMSNO-jsiwof9e4MY=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.