Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
3. Three circular lacerated wounds with inverted margins of the sizes varying from 1/4" to 1/2" in diameter on the right shoulder with blackening of the skin around the wound. Fractures of the body of the external bones of third, fourth, fifth and sixth ribs and cartilages on the right side, as well as the fourth, fifth and sixth ribs and on the left side were noticed. The third and the fourth thorazix vertebra, the right devicles, right scapula, and the upper part of the numerous on the right side were also found fractured. Injury Nos. 1 and 3 referred to above were wounds of entry, while injury No. 2 was the wound of exit. All the above injuries ~.._ c were caused by fire arms. Death of Tarkeshwar Singh had been caused by shock and hemorrhage as a result of above noted 'yii injuries. The time elapsed since death was with 12 to 18 hours of the post-mortem examination. All the injuries individually were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Ext. 3 is the post-mortem examination. The medical examination of PWS Ram Raj Pandey on 13.1.1983 conducted D by Dr. K. Singh disclosed the following. Lacerated wound on left side of neck 'l" x 1/2" surrounded by charring of skin. The X-ray plate dated 14.1.1983 showed a big oblique subset with small radio opaque particle. It was a skin (deep) injury caused by a fire arm, may be a rifle Age of the injury was within 24 hours. Ex. 2 is medico legal certificate. Dr. K. Singh, who examined PW6 found the following injury :- One lacerated wound on left side of the shoulder 3" x 1". The depth could not be probed. This injury was surrounded by charring skin. The x-ray plate no. 41 dated 14.1.1983 showed three shots on the upper left side of back. It was simple in nature caused by a fire arm such as a rifle or gun. Age of the injury was within 12 hours. Ext. 2/1 is the medico legal certificate.
4. As stated earlier, the plea of the appellants was that the prosecu- tion allegations are untrue and that they were innocent. Accused nos. 1 and 6 and two· other accused advanced the plea of alibi and examined DWl to 3 in support of the same. The said evidence did not find favour with the trial court. The appellants also examined DW 4 Kuldip Roy and DW 5 H Priya Brat Singh to show that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was a terror. PREM KR. v. STAIBOFBIHAR[PARIPOORNAN,J.]
5. Certain crucial aspects appearing in the case deserve to be high- lighted. Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was shot dead inside the bus bearing Registration No. BRO 3555 at the bus stop Ketat at about 6.30 p.m. on 13.1.1983. The deceased met with instantaneous death. PW 1, PW 2, PW 5 and PW 8 are the eye witnesses. PW 8 lodged FIR on the same day at 7.30 p.m. PW 5, a forest guard, was a co-passenger and an independent B witness. He also speaks about the incident and he was injured in the act of firing by Accused nos. 1 and 2. The post-mortem report and the evidence of PW 4 proves that the injury resulted due to shots of fire arms. There was, admittedly enmity between the family of the informants and that of the accused. Deceased Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, along with PW 1, 2, 8 C and PW 5 and 6, and few others was returning in the bus, belonging to Santosh Transport Company on 13.1.1983, after attending the murder case of Rajan and Bishwanath.
The prosecution states that Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh (Accused Nos. 1 and 2), who came from behind in the jeep and the car along with few others, fired fatal shots at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh with their rifles in furtherance of common intention of the other D accused persons, which caused the instantaneous death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. The courts below have concurrently held that the motive suggested by the prosecution against the accused persons is established. When there is sufficient direct evidence regarding the commission of the offence, the question of motive will not loom large in the mind of the court. E. It is true that this Court has held in State of U.P. v. Moti Ram and Ors., [1990] 4 sec 389, that in a case where the prosecution party and the accused party were in animosity on account of series of incidents over a considerable length of time, the motive is a double-edged weapon and the key question for consideration is whether the prosecution had convincingly F and satisfactorily established the guilt of all or any of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by letting in reliable and cogent evidence.
Very often, a motive is alleged to indicate the high degree of probability, that the offence was committed by the person, who was prompted by the motive. In our opinion, in a case when motive alleged against the accused is fully estab- lished, it provides a foundational material to connect the chain of cir- cumstances. We hold that if motive is proved or established, it affords a key or pointer, to scan the evidence in the case, in that perspective and as a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration. It is a very relevant, and impor- tant aspect, (a) to highlight the intention of the accused and (b) the [1995) 2 S.C.R. A approach to be made in appreciating the totality of the circumstances, including the evidence disclosed in the case. The relevance of motive and the importance or value to be given to it are tersely stated by Shamsul Huda in delivering the Tagore Law Lectures (1902) – The Principles of the Law of Crimes in British India, at page 176, as follows :- c "But proof of the existence of a motive is not necessary for a conviction for any offence. But where the motive is proved it is evidence of the evil intent and is also relevant to show that the person who had the motive to_ commit a crime actually committed, it, although such evidence along would not ordinarily be sufficient. Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact." In these circumstances, the only crucial factor that falls for determination D is to see whether satisfactory evidence was available on record for bringing home the guilt of the appellants/accused persons. We shall discuss in brief ' v the evidence of the four eye-witnesses PW 1, 2, 5, and 8, to the extent it is necessary to show how far the prosecution has established its case. "'1
6. The main arguments advanced before us on behalf of the appel• E !ants-accused are (a) PW 1 to 8 are not really eye witnesses and they were not able to depose, who fired the final shot and when; (b) the shot received by Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh is of the gun and not of the rifle as spoken to the prosecution witness; (c) there is inconsistency in the prosecution ' evidence, and what is more the statement in FIR is not fully substantiated.
7. We were taken through the evidence of PW 1, 2 and 4, (medical wi~ss), PW 5 – independent witness (Forest Guard) and PW 8 – first· informant and PW 12. We have also gone through the FIR appearing at 'pages 51-54 (paper book No. III – Annexure P-10) and also the statement given by the accused in their examination under section 313 of Criminal G Procedure Code. We shall not advert to the salient features disclosed by . the said evidence appearing in the case.
8. PW 1, Bashishth Narain Singh is the father-in-law of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. He deposed before the Court that himself, PW 2, PW 8 and H the few others were in the Santosh Bus when it stopped at Ketat village, a PREM KR. v. STA1EOFBIHAR[PARIPOORNAN,J.] jeep and a car came from behind and 10-15 persons armed with rifles and A guns gots down from both the vehicles and shouted that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh is in the bus and he should be cut. He was trying to get down from the bus to run away when Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh, Accused Nos. 1 and 2, came from the front gate with rifles along with MtJndrika Singh (A-6). There were, amongst passengers, one Forest Department Official B (PW 5) and another police official (OPW 6). He knew Muridrika Singh, /,.- Ram_esh Singh and Prem Singh for a long time. No doubt he had developed weakness in the eyes two months prior to the date of examination, but he had clear vision and his eyes were alright at the time of the occurrence.
He admitted that he had given statement before the police that Ramesh Singh and Prem Singh started firing at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh after c entering into the bus. He heard the noise of firing when he was fleeing from the bus and also heard the shout of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh to save him. PW 2 Ran Vijay Pratap Deo, deposed that he boarded S~tosh Bus in the evening to come back to Rehla along with PW 1, PW · 8 and Tarkeshwar Prasad· Singh and when the bus halted near Ketat village to D drop some passengers, a Fiat car came from Daltonganj direction and f stopped before the bus. Accused Ramesh Singh and others with rifles in their hands, and Mundrika Singh got down. Mundrika Singh's hands were empty. A jeep also came from behind and Prem Singh and others got down from the jeep with the rifles. The jeep and the car surrounded the bus and E thereafter, he heard the noise of firing from the bus gate.
Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh were standing near the front gate of the bus with rifle. The moment he came out of the bus, he heard the noise of firing and simul- taneously th~ shout of Tarkes~war Prasad Singh. He also speaks about the ,.-' enmity between the accused and Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. According to F him, there was indiscriminate firing in the bus. PW 5, a forest officer and independent witness, stated before the Court that he boarded Santosh Bus at Daltonganj bus stand on 13.1.1983 and when the bus stopped in front of Ketat village, 5-6 persons surrounded the bus and started firing indis- criminately. He was injured due to firing. Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh died inside the bus,· hit by the bullet. Persons firing were outside the bus next to the bus door and were firing inside. The bullet hit the witness after breaking the glass of the bus window. He knew Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh before since he was a forest contractor.
PW 8 – Dudhnath Singh, who gave the FIR available at pages 51-54 of Volume III of the paper book, is the brother-in-law of the deceased Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. In the FIR he H (1995] 2 S.C.R. A has stated that along with Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, PW 1, 2 and others, they boarded the bus at Daltonganj and when the bus reached Ketat village at about 6.45 in the evening to drop a passenger, a car, belonging to Chandrika Singh, bearing No. WHB 5989, 'came overtaking the bus and stopped in front of it. The passengers, sitting in it, got down and were B armed with guns and rifles. He recognised those persons. Among them Ramesh Singh, Accused No. 2and other s had rifles. Immediately after this the jeep, bearing No. BRO 2770, came. and Prem Singh, Accused No. 1, and others got down with rifles in hand. All the persons in the car and the jeep surrounded the standing bus and said that 'sala' Tarkeshwar Prasad ·c Singh is in it, he should be taken out and cut into pieces.
The persons travelling inside the bus started begging for life and started fleeing. Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh were identifying the passengers and PW 8, by hiding his face, got down from the rear gate. Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was in the back. As soon as the witness reached the rear gate, he saw Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh entering the bus from the front gate with their D rifles and started indiscriminate firing on Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. The witness ran outside to save his life, but while running he heard Tarkeshwar Singh's shouts from inside the bus. He hid himself in nearby bushes. The reason for this murder is that Prem Singh, Ramesh Singh and others had enmity towards Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh and wanted to take revenge due E .to the pending murder case of Rajan and Bishwanath in Daltonganj. As PW 8, the witness, substantially corroborated what he stated in the FIR. He deposed that he was travelling along with Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, PW 1 and others in the bus belonging to Santosh Transport Company.
At about 6.45 p.m. at Ketat village the bus stopped to drop a passenger when F a Fiat car bearing No. WHB 5989 stopped in front of the bus and Ramesh Singh and others came out of the same with rifles and thereafter a jeep bearing No. BRO 2770 came and Prem Singh and others got down out of the jeep with rifles and all of them abusing Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh stated that he should be cut into pieces. Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh stood near the front door of the bus and fired shots with rifles. PW 8 was G successful in fleeing away by covering his face with a chadar. He saw that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh got injured by the bullet inside the bus. Tarkesh- war Prasad Singh was behind him when firing had taken place. He did not s'ee bullet being fired on any other passenger other than Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. Another person, who was a forest guard, was injured, hit by a bullet. H The FIR available at pages 51-54 of volume III of the paper book and the )…, PREM KR. v. STA1EOFBIHAR[PARIPOORNAN,J.] deposition of the eye witnesses, PW 1, PW 2, PW 5 and PW 8, of whom A PW 5 is an independent witness, clearly bring out the fact that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came in a jeep and a car with rifles, with a few other persons, that they got into the bus from the front and fired indiscriminately at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.
PW 5, a forest officer as an independent witness, who himself sustained injuries, has also stated that he knew Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. He also stated that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh died inside the bus due to hit by the bullets. There is no contradiction with regard to the crucial aspects, namely, that these witnesses travelled along with Tarkesh- war Prasad Singh in the same bus, that the bus stopped at Ketat village to drop a passenger, at that time Accused nos. 1 and 2 came in a jeep and a car with rifles, from behind, along with others, surrounded the bus and C after proclaiming that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh is inside the bus and he should be cut into pieces, they entered the bus and fired indiscriminately, at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, which resulted in the death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh instantaneously.
9. PW 4 – Dr. R.K. Pandey, who conducted the post-mortem ex- amination of the dead-body, proved the post-mortem certificate issued by him and also stated that the injuries referred to in the certificate were caused by fire arms. Ext. 3 – certificate – is in his own handwriting and signed by him. Six metallic pieces recovered from the dead-body were properly sealed and sent to the police. All the injuries were caused by some E fire arms. The post-mortem report – Annexure P-8, (Volume III of the paper book) – mentions about two metallic pieces embodied in the wounds in the upper left side of the abdomen and also refers to a recovery of total six metallic pieces. The post-mortem report along with the evidence of the medical witness PW 4 substantiates that the injuries sustained by Tarkesh- war Prasad Singh were as a result of shots received from the fire arms and that they were fatal. Such injuries were sustained by Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh only due to the shots received from the fire arms, employed by the accused against Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, while in the bus as spoken to by eye witnesses PW 1, PW 2, PW 5 and PW 8. The direct evidence in the G case, amply corroborated by the motive of the accused, positively points out the intention of the accused to murder Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.
10. Sachchidanand Deo, Inspector of Police, PW 14, who recorded the FIR, stated that he had seized two bullet on the front gage foot-steps H [1995) 2 S.C.R. A of the bus and that he did not find any rifle or gun at the place of occurrence or nearby and that he recorded the FIR and other statements from the witnesses etc. It is also important to notice that PW 8 has given the number of the Fiat car and the jeep and PW 12 Chandreshwar Upadhyay, who came along with Prem Singh in jeep has categorically B stated that the number of the jeep is BRO 2770 and Prem Singh regularly used to. bring him in 'that jeep.
11. Appellants' cou~el made a feeble attempt to contend that it is not clear in this case whether'the injuries to Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh were causelt py the rifle or by the gun. The plea was that the cartridges recove~~d were not sent to the ballistic expert nor was any ballistic expert examined. Our attention was invited to the decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh v. The State, [1950) SCR 821, and in particular to the observations of the Court at page 828. We are of the view that the said decision is distinguishable. It will be found from page 825 of the Report D that the accused in the said case produced "a 12 bore gun" Ext. P-16, for which he held the licence. He denied that he had fired with the said gun. His case was that Gurnam Singh, who reached the spot at about the time of incident, had fired at the deceased Dalip Singh. There were certain puzzling features of the injuries of Dalip Singh.
It is in that connection the E court observed as follows : – "In a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it has always been considered to be the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been cause~ with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have y– been caused." –.– The above observations were made in a case where the weapon with which the victim sustained injuries was before the Court and there was doubt G whether the injuries could have been caused by using that weapon – Ext. P-16, in the reported case. In this case, the rifles used by Accused Nos. 1 /_..,. and 2 were never recovered. So, the prosecution could not, in the cir- cumstances, allege that a particular identifiable weapon was used in com- mitting the crime. There was nothing to be examined by the ballistic expert. H The observations in Mohinder Singh v. The State (supra) should be under- 1,/ PREM KR. v. STA1EOFBIHAR(PARIPOORNAN,J.] stood in the above peculiar context. There is no merit in this plea.
12. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence in the case, we are candidly of the view that the finding of the courts below that Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh, Accused Nos. 1 and 2, duet() enmity, had committed the murder of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh intentionally by firing repeated shots at him from their respective rifles, is justified and their convictions under B Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is proper and unassailable. there is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed. R.P. Appeal dismissed.