High Court Acquits Mother, Upholds Son's Conviction in Begusarai Murder Case

 

A Critical Examination of Eyewitness Testimony and the Principle of Common Intention

In a significant judgment delivered on August 30, 2024, the High Court of Judicature at Patna, through a division bench of Honourable Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Honourable Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh, acquitted Sudha Devi (appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 79 of 2017) while affirming the conviction and sentence of her son, Raja Paswan (appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 152 of 2017), in a murder case stemming from a dispute over selling eggs. This detailed ruling, arising from Begusarai Muffasil P.S. Case No. 427 of 2014, offers a compelling insight into the rigorous scrutiny of evidence, particularly eyewitness accounts and the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning common intention, making it accessible to a broader audience.

The Background: A Street Vendor's Murder

The prosecution's case originated from the "fardbeyan" (first information statement) of Rinku Devi (PW-6), the wife of the deceased, Rohit Tanti. According to her statement, recorded on December 7, 2014, her husband, Rohit Tanti, a street vendor, used to sell eggs from a cart near Mahavir Asthan in Begusarai. Just beside him, Raja Paswan, son of Doman Paswan, also sold eggs.

On the day of the incident, December 7, 2014, at around 1:30 PM, Raja Paswan allegedly initiated an altercation with Rohit Tanti, claiming exclusive rights to sell eggs at that spot. During this heated exchange, Raja Paswan's mother, Sudha Devi, reportedly instigated her son, saying, "he will not understand, kill him." Following this instigation, Raja Paswan, who is handicapped in his right hand, allegedly took out a pistol with his left hand and shot Rohit Tanti in the left side of his chest. Rohit Tanti immediately collapsed, bleeding profusely. Rinku Devi, with the help of Sanjay Shah (PW-2), managed to get her husband onto a scooter and rushed him to Sadar Hospital, Begusarai, but he succumbed to his injury on the way.

Based on Rinku Devi's statement, Begusarai Muffasil P.S. Case No. 427 of 2014 was registered under Section 302/34 IPC (murder with common intention) and Section 27 of the Arms Act (for illegal possession and use of a firearm). After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against both Raja Paswan and Sudha Devi. The trial commenced, and the accused pleaded not guilty.

The Trial Court's Verdict and Appeals

The learned Additional Sessions and District Judge-VIII, Begusarai, in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 2015, delivered its judgment on December 1, 2016. The trial court found both Raja Paswan and Sudha Devi guilty of murder under Section 302/34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. In addition, Raja Paswan was convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Aggrieved by this judgment, both Raja Paswan and Sudha Devi filed separate appeals before the Patna High Court (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 79 of 2017 by Sudha Devi and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 152 of 2017 by Raja Paswan).

Prosecution Witnesses and Evidence

The prosecution examined nine witnesses and presented documentary evidence:

• PW-1 (Parmanand Sharma): Claimed to be present at the temple (Bharra Chowk) and witnessed the entire occurrence.
• PW-2 (Sanjay Sah): Stated he heard about the firing and helped take the deceased to the hospital.
• PW-3 (Ghultu Sharma): A beetle shop owner at the place of occurrence, claimed to be an eyewitness.
• PW-4 (Indu Devi): Wife of PW-1, claimed to have witnessed the incident from her terrace.
• PW-5 (Manoj Tanti): Brother of the deceased, claimed to be sitting at the temple and witnessed the firing.
• PW-6 (Rinku Devi): Wife of the deceased and informant, claimed to have heard the quarrel, rushed to the spot, and witnessed the firing.
• PW-7 (Girivar Ram): Investigating Officer (I.O.).
• PW-8 (Dr. Gopal Mishra) & PW-9 (Dr. Chakravarti Chaudhary): Medical professionals who conducted the post-mortem.

Documentary evidence included the "fardbeyan" (Ext. 1/A), formal FIR (Ext. 2), injury report (Ext. 3), and Post-Mortem Report (Ext. 4).

The Defense's Contentions: Doubts on Place of Occurrence, Eyewitnesses, and Delay

Mr. Aaruni Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, raised several critical points challenging the prosecution's case:

1. Disputed Place of Occurrence (P.O.): The defense argued that the prosecution failed to definitively prove the P.O. While the "fardbeyan" stated Hanuman Mandir Chauraha, witnesses gave conflicting descriptions (under Ashoka tree, near Bajrangbali Chowk, in front of a shop, or at the deceased's "darwaja"). The I.O.'s (PW-7) description also varied, creating mystery around the exact spot of the firing.

2. Lack of Credible Eyewitnesses:

   • No eyewitness names were mentioned in the initial "fardbeyan" of PW-6.
   • PW-6's (informant) presence was doubtful; her house was 25-30 houses away from the P.O., and she claimed to have heard the uproar from her courtyard. She also contradicted herself regarding taking her husband to a private doctor first. Her statement to the I.O. did not mention her presence at the P.O.
   • PW-1 claimed to be at the temple but his testimony about Sudha Devi's instigation varied in cross-examination.
   • PW-2 admitted to being a "hearsay witness," hearing about the firing from others. He stated he only heard a sound after moving away from the quarrel site and returned to find the deceased shot. He did not mention Sudha Devi's presence or instigation.
   • PW-3, the shop owner, claimed to see the firing but in cross-examination, stated he heard the sound from the south, came out, and saw the deceased surrounded by 10-12 people. He did not see anyone lifting Rohit. He also stated no other person was with Raja Paswan at the time of firing, contradicting the presence of Sudha Devi.
   • PW-4, wife of PW-1, claimed to be on the terrace with her husband, but her husband (PW-1) stated he was at the temple. She admitted to deposing what her husband told her, making her a tutored witness.
   • PW-5, the deceased's brother, admitted to coming from Delhi to depose at his family's instance and stating what he was told, making him a "tutored witness." His inaction during the alleged incident, despite being present, also raised doubts.

3. Unreliable Conduct of Witnesses: The defense argued that the inaction of several prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-3, PW-5) who claimed to be present but did not intervene to save the deceased, despite the incident occurring in broad daylight in a busy marketplace, made their testimonies untrustworthy. They cited Muluwa vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1976 SC 989) on unreliable "infirmed witnesses."

4. Belated and Manipulated FIR:

   • The defense pointed to a delay of over 1.5 hours in recording the "fardbeyan" and a further 2 hours in registering the formal FIR.
   • The FIR was dispatched to the court only on the next day, December 8, 2014, as the dispatch column was left blank. This delay, without proper explanation, was argued to be fatal to the prosecution, citing Meharaj Singh vs. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188.
   • The I.O. (PW-7) claimed to have prepared the inquest report, but later stated it was not before him, only a photocopy in the case diary. The defense alleged that the inquest report was actually prepared by an unexamined S.I. Shankar Chaudhary, and that the "fardbeyan" was a belatedly manufactured story to implicate business rivals.
   • The I.O. found no blood at the P.O., which the defense argued suggested the deceased was shot elsewhere.

5. Lack of Motive and Premeditation: The defense questioned the motive, arguing there was no long-standing enmity to suggest Raja Paswan would intentionally bring a loaded pistol to kill the deceased over an egg-selling dispute. They also argued that if Raja Paswan intended to kill, his mother's instigation would be unnecessary. They highlighted that PW-2 and PW-3 did not corroborate Sudha Devi's presence or instigation.

State's Counter-Arguments

The Additional Public Prosecutors for the State opposed the appeals, asserting that:

1. P.O. Duly Proved: All witnesses consistently pointed to Hanuman Mandir Chauraha at Bharra as the P.O., with the Ashoka tree in the vicinity. The I.O.'s description also corroborated this.
2. Eyewitnesses are Credible: The prosecution maintained that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6 were all eyewitnesses and their testimonies were rightly believed by the trial court.
3. No Inordinate Delay in FIR: The delay in recording the "fardbeyan" and lodging the FIR was not "inordinate." The incident occurred at 1:30 PM, "fardbeyan" at 3:30 PM, and FIR at 5:10 PM. They cited Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) 2 SC 557, which states that mere delay in lodging FIR is not fatal if causes are not attributable to concoction.
4. Motive Established: The enmity over selling eggs at the same spot was duly proved, showing Raja Paswan came prepared with a loaded pistol.
5. Inquest Report Available: The I.O. did not suppress the inquest report, stating it was in the case diary. The absence of blood at the P.O. was explained by the delay in I.O. reaching the spot, allowing time for the blood to be removed or for darkness to set in.

High Court's Detailed Consideration and Findings

The High Court meticulously re-evaluated the evidence, witness by witness, and addressed each contention:

1. Place of Occurrence: The Court agreed with the trial court that the P.O. was sufficiently proved as Hanuman Mandir Chauraha. Despite minor variations in descriptions, the core location remained consistent across witnesses.

2. Delay in FIR: The High Court found no "inordinate delay" in recording the "fardbeyan" and lodging the FIR. It noted the time elapsed and cited Hariprasad (supra) to emphasize that mere delay is not fatal unless it suggests concoction.

3. Credibility of Eyewitnesses and Sudha Devi's Role: This was the most critical aspect of the Court's analysis.

   • PW-1 (Parmanand Sharma): The Court noted his material deviation in cross-examination regarding Sudha Devi's instigation. He did not mention her asking Raja to kill Rohit, only Raja threatening to shoot.
   • PW-2 (Sanjay Sah): This witness did not mention Sudha Devi's presence or instigation in his examination-in-chief. His testimony suggested he only heard a firing sound after moving away and returned to find Rohit shot. The Court also found his signing as a witness on the "fardbeyan" doubtful as he stated he was not recorded as a witness.
   • PW-3 (Ghultu Sharma): Crucially, PW-3 stated that "there was no other person with Raja Paswan at that time" when the firing took place, directly contradicting Sudha Devi's presence. He also stated 10-20 people assembled after the bullet hit, not during the quarrel.
   • PW-4 (Indu Devi): The Court found her testimony unreliable as she admitted to deposing what her husband (PW-1) told her, and her claim of being on the roof contradicted PW-1's claim of being at the temple.
   • PW-5 (Manoj Tanti): The Court clearly labeled him a "related and tutored witness" whose testimony "cannot be safely relied upon." His admitted inaction despite being the deceased's brother also made his presence doubtful.
   • PW-6 (Rinku Devi): The Court found her claim of hearing the uproar from her courtyard, 25-30 houses away in a busy area, "highly doubtful." Her presence at the P.O. at the time of firing was not corroborated by other witnesses (PW-1, PW-3, PW-2), and she contradicted her "fardbeyan" about taking her husband to a private doctor first. The Court concluded that she was "not an eyewitness to the occurrence" and likely reached the P.O. only after her husband was shot. Her non-mentioning of her presence at the P.O. in the "fardbeyan" and to the I.O. further weakened her claim.

4. Investigating Officer (PW-7): The Court acknowledged the I.O.'s contradictions regarding the inquest report but accepted his explanation that the photocopy was in the case diary. The absence of blood at the P.O. was deemed not fatal due to the delay in the I.O. reaching the spot.

5. Medical Evidence (PW-9): The post-mortem report (Exhibit 4) confirmed that Rohit Tanti died from a firearm injury caused by a close-range shot, with tattooing and charring marks around the wound. This corroborated the fact that Raja Paswan fired at the deceased.

The High Court's Conclusion: Acquittal for Sudha Devi, Conviction Affirmed for Raja Paswan

After a thorough re-evaluation of the evidence, the High Court reached a decisive conclusion:

• Sudha Devi's Acquittal: The Court found that PW-2 and PW-3, whom it considered "two reliable witnesses," did not state anything about Sudha Devi's presence at the P.O. or her instigation. PW-3's testimony directly contradicted her presence. Given the inconsistencies and unreliability of other witnesses regarding Sudha Devi's role, the prosecution "failed to prove the guilt of Sudha Devi beyond all reasonable doubts." Consequently, her conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC were set aside, and she was acquitted and discharged from her bail bond.

• Raja Paswan's Conviction Affirmed: The Court found that the motive (enmity over selling eggs) was established by PW-6's testimony. More importantly, the medical evidence confirmed a firearm death by a close-range shot. While some witnesses were unreliable regarding the instigation, the core act of Raja Paswan firing the shot was sufficiently established by the reliable testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3, who saw Raja Paswan quarreling with Rohit and then firing at him (or hearing the shot and seeing him flee). The Court concluded that the prosecution "fully established the guilt of the appellant Raja Paswan beyond doubt." Therefore, his conviction and sentence were affirmed. Since he was already incarcerated, he would continue to serve the sentence awarded by the trial court.

Final Outcome:

• Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 79 of 2017 (Sudha Devi's appeal) was allowed.
• Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 152 of 2017 (Raja Paswan's appeal) was dismissed.

The trial court records, along with a copy of the judgment, were ordered to be sent to the lower court.

Broader Implications:

This judgment is a powerful illustration of the appellate court's role in meticulously re-examining evidence, especially in criminal cases where liberty is at stake.

1. Importance of Corroboration: The case highlights that while related witnesses are not inherently unreliable, their testimonies must be thoroughly scrutinized and corroborated by independent evidence or other credible accounts. Mere relationship to the deceased does not automatically make a witness credible, especially when their accounts are inconsistent or tutored.

2. Scrutiny of "Common Intention" (Section 34 IPC): The acquittal of Sudha Devi demonstrates that mere presence or a general statement of instigation is not enough to establish "common intention" under Section 34 IPC, especially when direct and reliable eyewitnesses contradict her presence or active participation. The prosecution must prove that the act was done in furtherance of a pre-arranged plan or shared intention.

3. Reliability of Eyewitnesses: The detailed analysis of each eyewitness's testimony, pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions, serves as a textbook example of how courts assess credibility. Factors like distance from the P.O., admitted tutoring, and inaction during the incident all played a role in discrediting certain witnesses.

4. Forensic Evidence as Corroboration: The medical evidence (post-mortem report) played a crucial role in corroborating the fact of death by firearm and the close-range nature of the shot, strengthening the case against Raja Paswan.

5. Impact of Investigative Lapses: While the Court acknowledged some investigative lapses (e.g., absence of blood at P.O., unexamined scribe of "fardbeyan"), it carefully weighed whether these were fatal to the entire prosecution case or merely minor infirmities. In this instance, they were not deemed sufficient to acquit Raja Paswan, whose direct involvement was otherwise established.

In conclusion, the Patna High Court's ruling in this Begusarai murder case is a nuanced judgment that underscores the judiciary's commitment to delivering justice based on a thorough and critical evaluation of evidence, ensuring that only those whose guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt are held accountable. It provides invaluable lessons on the complexities of criminal trials, particularly concerning the weight given to different types of evidence and the legal principles governing collective liability.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM3OSMyMDE3IzEjTg==-51oVmDiY6pc=