ANUJ SINGH @ RAMANUJ SINGH @ SETH SINGH vs THE STATE OF BIHAR

ANUJ SINGH @ RAMANUJ SINGH @ SETH SINGH vs THE STATE OF BIHAR

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2020

ANUJ SINGH @ RAMANUJ SINGH

@ SETH SINGH … APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR … RESPONDENT (S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2020

MANOJ SINGH … APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR … RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. The appellants in these two connected appeals have challenged the

common judgment and order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’) in Criminal Appeal

(SJ) No. 69 of 2007 filed by the present appellants modifying the judgment

passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellants under Section 307 read with

1

Section 34 Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and confirming their conviction

under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court after convicting the

appellants under Section 307 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentenced

them to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 307 and fine

of Rs.5,000/- and three years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 27 of the

Arms Act and a fine of Rs.2,000/-. On an appeal filed by them, the High Court

converted their conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to

Section 324 IPC and awarded two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of

Rs.5,000/- and three months simple imprisonment in case of default. The

sentence awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court of three years Rigorous

Imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act was confirmed. Aggrieved by

the same, the two appellants are before us.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under :-

On the basis of fardbeyan of PW-6 (injured informant), Kumar Nandan

Singh made at the clinic of Dr. Himkar, the police registered an FIR being

Case No. 312 of 1999 dated 10.10.1999, Police Station - Lakhi Sarai,

under Sections 323, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the

Arms Act. The injured informant, PW-6, stated in his fardbeyan that on

the fateful day at about 05:30 PM, while he was repairing the ‘Kaccha

Mud Wall’, which had fallen down due to rain, with the help of hired

labourers, his neighbour, namely, accused–appellant, Manoj Singh came

2

and objected to repairing of the wall. The informant told him that the

land belongs to him, after which Manoj Singh went to his house and

came back again along with co-accused Anuj Singh having guns in their

hands. The other two accused, Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh, also

came having spears in their hands. It was further stated that Manoj Singh

and Anuj Singh both with a malafide intention to kill him, fired shots.

The bullet shot fired from the gun of Manoj Singh struck in the left leg

and the bullet fired from the gun of Anuj Singh hit the hand. It was

further stated that Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh assaulted him with

the spear and lathi in their hands. On hearing gun shots, his family

members and other villagers came there. Seeing the people coming, all

the four accused ran away to their houses. It was further stated that he

was brought in an injured condition to the clinic of Dr. Himkar where on

arrival of police, the statement was recorded.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the injured informant

PW-6, the FIR was registered on the same day, however, it was not forwarded to

the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same day but was sent after two

days i.e., on 12.10.1999. After completing the investigation, the police

submitted a charge-sheet against the two appellants, Anuj Singh and Manoj

Singh, under Section 307 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The other

two co-accused, Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh, were charged under Section

3

307 read with Section 34 IPC. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took

cognizance against the accused persons on 01.09.2000 and the case was

committed to the Court of Sessions on 16.01.2001.

4. The Trial Court after analyzing the statement made by the prosecution

witness and the evidence of the defence, vide judgment and order dated

22.12.2006 convicted the accused appellants, Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh, and

the other two co-accused, Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh, under Section 307

read with Section 34 IPC. The two appellants herein were also held guilty for

the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the four accused

were sentenced to undergo five years of Rigorous Imprisonment under Section

307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with

default clause of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The two appellants

herein were further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years

under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with default

clause for three months on failure to pay the fine.

5. Two sets of Criminal Appeals were filed before the High Court. The two

accused, Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh, filed Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 16 of

2007 whereas the present appellants filed Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 69 of 2007

challenging their conviction and sentence.

4

6. The High Court decided both the appeals by common judgment and order

dated 16.01.2018 impugned herein. Insofar as, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 16 of

2007 filed by Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh is concerned, the same was

allowed by the High Court and their conviction and sentence was set aside and

they were exonerated.

7. Insofar as the Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 69 of 2007 filed by the two

appellants herein is concerned, the High Court modified the conviction under

Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to Section 324 IPC and modified the

sentence awarded under the said Section by the Trial Court to Rigorous

Imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with three months Simple

Imprisonment in case of default. However, the conviction of the two appellants

and their sentencing under Section 27 of the Arms Act was confirmed.

8. We have heard Mrs. Anjana Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the appellants and Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Mr. Saket Singh, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the Respondent State and Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned

counsel appearing for the intervenor.

9. Mrs. Anjana Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants

vehemently submitted that though the conviction is under Section 27 of the

Arms Act but there is no material available on record to indicate recovery of any

5

gun or any seizure memo showing recovery of any bullet or pellets from the

spot. She also points out that even though the fardbeyan was recorded on

10.10.1999 and First Information Report was registered on the same day but the

same was sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.10.1999 and in

the absence of any explanation for delayed submission of FIR, the whole

prosecution story becomes doubtful.

10. After taking us through the statement of prosecution witnesses, she

pointed out the contradictions therein and vehemently submitted that the

contradictory statements made by the prosecution witnesses cast a serious

shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution story and, thus, the

appellants have been wrongly convicted and are liable to be discharged.

11. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and the intervenor

submitted that the High Court after analysing the statement of the witnesses has

rightly convicted the appellants and there being no illegality in the impugned

order, the same does not warrant any interference.

12. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel

appearing for the parties and perused the record.

6

13. The main issue arising in this appeal for our consideration is whether

conviction of the two appellants, Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh, under Section

324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act is sustainable?

14. The prosecution in all examined nine witnesses and two witnesses were

produced on behalf of the defence. An analysis of the testimony of the

prosecution witness are as follows:

a) PW-1 and PW-2, Bidya Sagar and Anil Singh, were declared as hostile by

the prosecution.

b) PW-3 Janardhan Singh stated that on 10.10.1999 at 5:30 PM, an

occurrence took place and at that time he came from his field to

Bajrangbali Mandir and saw Kumar Nandan Singh who was repairing his

wall. In the meantime, all the accused person came and started abusing

Kumar Nandan Singh. After which, the accused persons went to their

house and Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh came back armed with gun while

Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh came armed with lathi and spear.

Kumar Nandan Singh raised an alarm and told everybody around him to

escape from the place of occurrence and in the meantime, the accused

Manoj Singh fired a bullet shot on Kumar Nandan Singh which hit his

left foot. A second shot was fired by accused Anuj Singh due to which

Kumar Nandan Singh fell down. Thereafter, all the accused persons ran

7

away from the place of occurrence. In his cross examination, PW-3 stated

that accused Manoj Singh was present at the time of occurrence. He also

stated that due to gun shot injury, blood was oozing out from the body of

Kumar Nandan Singh as a result of which his clothes were stained with

blood. He further stated that Lakhisarai Referral Hospital is in between

his house and the clinic of Dr. Himkar, however, the doctor was not

available in the referral hospital. Therefore, Kumar Nandan Singh was

taken to the private clinic of Dr. Himkar for treatment.

c) PW-4 Naveen Singh has stated that occurrence took place on 10.10.1999

at 5:00 PM. At that time, he was standing near Bajrangbali Mandir and

Kumar Nandan Singh was repairing his wall. In the meantime, accused

Manoj Singh came and wanted him to stop repairing the wall. Upon this,

an altercation took place between them and after that accused persons

returned back to their home. Accused Manoj Singh and Anuj Singh came

back from their home and fired upon Kumar Nandan Singh which hit his

foot and hand. The accused person fled away on hearing that an alarm

was raised. In his cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that there was blood

oozing out from his foot and hand due to bullet shot injury. He also stated

that accused Manoj Singh is in Government Service but he was present at

the place of occurrence.

8

d) PW-5 Gauri Shankar Singh is one of the signatories of the fardbeyan but

he has not proved his signature on fardbeyan. He has stated that the

occurrence took place on 10.10.1999 at 5:00 PM and at the time, Kumar

Nandan Singh was repairing his wall and accused Manoj Singh came and

wanted to stop the repairing work. An altercation took place between the

two and after that accused Manoj Singh ran towards his house and came

back with a gun in his hand. Anuj Singh also had a gun in his hand while

Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh were carrying spear and lathi in their

hand respectively. Accused Manoj Singh opened fire upon Kumar

Nandan Singh as a result of which he sustained injury on his leg and Anuj

Singh fired upon Kumar Nandan Singh which hit the arm of Kumar

Nandan Singh. In his cross-examination, PW-5 admitted that there is an

ongoing dispute between the accused persons and Kumar Nandan Singh.

He also stated that blood was oozing out from his hand and foot due to

the bullet shot injury. He further stated that Manoj Singh and Anuj Singh

fired the bullet shot from a distance of 6-7 hands and both bullet shots

were fired from the same distance.

e) PW-6 Kumar Nandan Singh, the injured and informant of the case has

stated that occurrence took place on 10.10.1999 at 5.30 PM and at that

time, he was repairing his wall. Accused Manoj Singh came on a

motorcycle and asked him why he was repairing the wall on the roadside

for which he replied saying that he was erecting wall on his own land.

9

Subsequent to which, altercations took place between the two. Accused

Manoj Singh and Anuj Singh came with guns and Arvind Singh and

Praveen Singh came with lathis. Thereafter, Accused Manoj Singh and

Anuj Singh fired upon him which hit his left foot and right arm as a result

of which he fell down and became unconscious. He was immediately

taken to the private clinic of Dr. Himkar whereby he was given the

treatment. In his cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that partition between

him and accused person took place 30 years ago and he further stated that

he cannot say whether there was any blood oozing out from his body as

he was unconscious. He also stated that his dhoti and kurta were stained

with blood and on showing it to the sub-inspector, he did not take the

same.

f) PW-7 Jagdish Singh stated that at the time of occurrence, he saw Kumar

Nandan Singh was constructing the boundary wall by extending it on the

road. Upon this, Praveen Singh, Anuj Singh and Arvind Singh came there

and started assaulting Kumar Nandan Singh. On raising alarm, Vinod

Singh came with a pistol and fired upon Kumar Nandan Singh as a result

of which he sustained injuries on his leg and hand. In his crossexamination, PW-7 stated that accused Manoj Singh was not present at

the place of occurrence.

10

g) PW-8, Dr. Himkar is said to have examined the injured informant, Kumar

Nandan Singh. He stated that on 10.10.1999 while he was posted as

Additional P.H.C Parsama, he examined Kumar Nandan Singh and found

the following injuries:

“I. (A) Wound of entry- Lacerated wound of about 1/6”

diameter with inverted margin over dorsum of right forearm

about 2” proximal to corresponding wrist. There was

charring of skin.

(B) Wound of exit- Lacerated wound of about ¼” diameter

averted margin over the dorsum of right forearm at the same

level of wound A.

II. (A) Lacerated wound of about 1/6” diameter over lateral

aspect of left Leg about 6” distal to left knee. It was the

wound of entry since the margin of the wound was inverted.

(B). Wound of exit- Lacerated wound of about ¼” diameter

over the lateral aspect of left leg and at the same level of

wound IIA. Margin of wound was inverted.

(III) Age of injuries within six hours. All injuries are caused

by fire arms and simple in nature.”

In his cross examination, he stated that in his private capacity,

he treated the injured informant and has also stated that he had

informed the police about the same. He further stated that he

cannot say about the position of entry and exit of the wound

when one fires beyond 5 feet. He further stated that he has not

11

found any blunt object and the legs and hands are not vital part

of the body.

h) PW-9 Ram Anup Mahto, the IO of the case has stated that on 10.10.1999,

he was posted at lakhisarai PS and on the same day, he was entrusted

with the investigation of this case. During the investigation, he took the

statement of the informant and he visited the place of occurrence which is

situated at Village Sodhi. He also stated that a dispute was going on

between the parties over the said land and he further took the statement of

other witnesses. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has not taken

the statement of the accused.

15. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses have been examined. DW-1 is

Shivendu Ranjan, who has been examined on the point of alibi and he has stated

that accused Manoj Singh was posted at Islampur Block as junior engineer and

he was not present at the place of occurrence on the relevant date. DW-2 is

Manish Kumar, who has accepted the original letter sent by B.D.0., lslampur to

S.I. Lakhisarai (Ext. A), which was issued on the basis of checking of

attendance register.

16. A bare perusal of the deposition of the witnesses prove that the two

appellants, Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh were present at the place of occurrence

with a firearm and injury has been caused to the informant PW-6 due to the act

12

of the Appellants. The defence of plea of alibi taken by appellant Manoj Singh

that he was posted at Islampur Block does not inspire confidence as there is no

attendance register maintained by the office and the prosecution witness has

categorically stated that the Appellant, Manoj Singh was present at the place of

occurrence.

17. It is not disputed that there are minor contradictions with respect to the

time of the occurrence or injuries attributed on hand or foot but the constant

narrative of the witnesses is that the appellants were present at the place of

occurrence armed with guns and they caused the injury on informant PW-6.

However, the testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded

merely because of minor contradictions or omission as observed by this court in

Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra1

. This Court

while considering the issue of contradictions in the testimony, while

appreciating the evidence in a criminal trial, held that only contradictions in

material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit

the testimony of the witnesses. Relevant portion of para 42 of the judgment

reads as under:

“42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in

material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of

the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself

would not necessarily render the testimony of witness

unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the

court is different in material particulars from that disclosed

1

 (2000) 8 SCC 457

13

in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution

becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions

are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses

as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of

observation differ from person to person. The omissions in

the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the

present case, the same would not cause any dent in the

testimony of PW 2. Even if there is contradiction of

statement of a witness on any material point, that is no

ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness.”

18. The evidentiary value of a medical witness is very crucial to corroborate

the case of prosecution and it is not merely a check upon testimony of

eyewitnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain

facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. It has been reiterated by this

court that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great

corroborative value as it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the

manner alleged. In the case at hand, PW-8, Dr. Himkar who examined the

informant PW-6 has clearly stated that all the injuries attributed on the

informant were caused by firearms and that tattooing may not appear over the

wound (injured area) if a person fires from 6-7 ft.

19. A detailed examination of prosecution witnesses clearly establishes:

i. That there was altercation between Informant PW-8 and the two

appellants Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh with respect to preventing

the Informant Pw-8 from repairing his wall.

ii. All the witnesses unequivocally confirmed the presence of the two

appellants at the place of occurrence on 10.10.1999.

14

iii. All the eyewitness have confirmed that the two appellants Anuj

Singh and Manoj Singh were armed with firearm.

iv. The medical evidence of PW-8, Dr. Himkar corroborates that

injuries inflicted on the Informant PW-8 were firearm injuries.

v. Injuries were inflicted on the non-vital part of the body of the

Informant PW-8.

20. It is a well-known fact that the term “hurt” simply means performing an

act which leads to physical pain, injury or any disease to a person. At times, hurt

may be caused voluntarily or it can by caused by using dangerous weapons or

mean. A person will be liable to have caused hurt voluntarily through dangerous

weapons and means under Section 324 IPC which reads as under:-

“324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or

means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section

334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for

shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used

as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of

fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or

any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive

substance or by means of any substance which it is

deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to

receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

21. To establish an offence under Sec 324 IPC, the presence of following

ingredients is a must which are as follows:-

 1. Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and

 2. Such hurt was caused:

15

a. By any instrument used for shooting, cutting or stabbing, or any other

instrument likely to cause death, or

b. By fire or other heated instruments, or

c. By poison or other corrosive substance, or

d. By any explosive substance, or

e. By a substance that is dangerous for the human body to swallow,

inhale, or receive through blood, or

f. By an animal.

When a person commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by

dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code,

then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of

three years, or with fine.

22. In the case at hand, it is evident from the evidence of prosecution

witnesses that the two appellants have caused hurt on the body of the informant,

PW-8 by using firearm on account of an altercation which took place between

the appellants and the informant PW-8. It also stands corroborated from the

evidence of the prosecution witness that there existed previous enmity between

the parties due to a land dispute and the same can be perceived from their acts.

Thus, the charge of Section 324 IPC stands established against the two

appellants. Once the charge against the appellants under Section 324 IPC of

voluntarily causing injuries by firearm, which is a dangerous weapon stands

established, they cannot escape the punishment for using arms prescribed by

Section 27 of the Arms Act.

16

23. From the analysis of the above facts and circumstances, the High Court

has rightly convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Section

324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. We do not find any good ground to

interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals lack merits and are

accordingly dismissed.

.......................................CJI.

(N.V.RAMANA)

...........................................J.

(KRISHNA MURARI)

...........................................J.

(HIMA KOHLI)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 22, 2022

17