In a criminal appeal filed before the Patna High Court against an order of conviction and sentence dated 30-05-2018 by Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura whereby the appellant was convicted of offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of life along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, a Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh set aside the impugned judgment and sentence.
On 22nd of July, 2014, the informant was returning to his house by a motorcycle, with his son as a pillion rider. He noticed that they were being followed by some persons who suddenly crossed them. The appellant along with two others caught hold of the informant’s son. The informant requested them to release his son but they assaulted him by fist and blows and thereafter, the appellant opened fire at the son. Upon being taken to the hospital, the Medical Officer examined him and declared him dead. The subsequent complaint leading to the investigation of the case culminated in filing of a charge sheet under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Judge relied on the evidence of the eyewitness alone and convicted the appellant.
The Court recorded that the informant did not support his case and that he did not utter even a single word against the appellant. The Court was surprised that the prosecution did not declare the informant to be hostile. It was noted that the trial court held that P.W. 1 was the eye-witness, but failed to consider his cross-examination in which he stated that he saw the deceased in an injured condition.
A doubt arose as to whether P.W. 1 was present at the place of occurrence and the Court stated that it could not be held that his evidence was of sterling character. The Court recorded that the investigation was an example of lackadaisical and indifferent investigation. It was stated that there were a series of lacunae in the prosecution case since during trial, even though the witnesses deposed, their signature was not marked on the seizure list.
The Court found it surprising that the ownership of the seized motorcycle and the phone had not been asserted by the I.O. It was also found that the empty cartridge was not sent to the Forensic Laboratory, which was the primary duty of the I.O. The Court stated that either the I.O. did not know the basic principles of investigation or purposefully withheld the evidences which could have been brought during investigation to save the accused persons.
The Court stated that the process of the investigation of the present case was a clear instance of dereliction of duty and hence, directed the Director General of Police to initiate departmental proceedings against the Investigating Officer. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the impugned conviction order as well as sentence were set aside.
