Case Background
This case arose from a daylight shooting that took place on 30.10.1992 at about 2 p.m. in village Chailwan, P.S. Gopalpur, District Gopalganj.
According to the fardbeyan of the informant, Roshan Kamkar (PW-3), he and his son, Nandlal Kamkar, had gone to the house of the village Mukhia, Shyam Sundar Rai (PW-1), to get their photographs attested. The attestation was required on cards used by farmers for supplying sugarcane to the sugar mill.
After getting the photographs attested, father and son started returning home. Near the “Bakhar” (cattle shed/storage) of the Mukhia, they were allegedly surrounded and attacked by several accused persons from the same village, all carrying country-made firearms.
The informant alleged that three accused, including appellant Parsuram Pandey, caught hold of Nandlal. On the order of accused Chandradeo Pandey to commit a murderous assault, accused Tribhuwan Pandey fired at Nandlal with a country-made katta from very close range, hitting him below the left eyebrow and under the nose. Nandlal fell down, cried in pain and started bleeding heavily.
The fardbeyan further stated that other accused took positions in three directions, threatened to shoot anyone who came near, and fled when villagers gathered on hearing the gunshot. The alleged motive mentioned was a quarrel 15 days earlier: accused Tribhuwan Pandey and Surendra Rai had reportedly cut sugarcane plants from the informant’s field, which Nandlal had opposed, leading to exchange of words.
Police registered Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 54 of 1992. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against all FIR-named accused. The case was committed to the Court of Session and registered as Sessions Trial No. 249 of 1993/54 of 1993.
The Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gopalganj, by judgment dated 21.08.1995 and order of sentence dated 22.08.1995, convicted appellant Tribhuwan Pandey under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 Arms Act. Other accused, including appellant Parsuram Pandey, were convicted under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.
All convicts filed criminal appeals. During pendency, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 253 of 1995 abated on 05.04.2022 in respect of five appellants (Surendra Pandey, Surendra Rai, Kanchan Rai, Ram Chandra Pandey and Chandradeo Pandey) due to their death. The appeal continued only for appellant no.1, Parsuram Pandey. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 293 of 1995 by appellant Tribhuwan Pandey also remained pending.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Badar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar (author of the judgment), heard both criminal appeals together and examined the entire record.
The prosecution examined eight witnesses. PW-7, Dr. Shambhu Kumar Kedia, conducted the post-mortem on Nandlal’s body. PW-8, Paras Nath Singh, was the Investigating Officer at the initial stage. PW-1 (Mukhia), PW-2, PW-3 (informant), PW-4 and PW-6 were cited and examined as eye-witnesses. PW-5 was examined mainly regarding the earlier incident of cutting the sugarcane plants.
The defence of the appellants throughout was that they were innocent and falsely implicated.
Challenge to motive and “genesis” of the occurrence
The first major argument by the appellants’ counsel was that there was no real enmity between the deceased’s family and the accused. The informant himself had admitted in cross-examination that there was no enmity at the time of occurrence and that he used to meet the accused in the village and exchange greetings even after the alleged cutting of sugarcane plants.
On this basis, counsel suggested that it was against common sense that the appellants would suddenly murder Nandlal, making the very origin of the prosecution story doubtful.
PW-5, who was projected as a witness to the sugarcane cutting incident, stated that he had gone to his field, though there was no work, and saw accused Tribhuwan and Surendra cutting the sugarcane plants of Nandlal. His cross-examination did not shake his assertion about the cutting incident.
The High Court agreed with the trial court’s reasoning that human motives can be “very mysterious” and it is difficult to predict how or when someone will act on inner feelings. A person may choose any particular moment for an offence and cannot be expected to reveal his mind when he meets his future victim.
The Bench noted that this was a case of direct evidence by eye-witnesses about the place of occurrence, the manner of attack and the weapons used. In such cases, motive is not essential for proving guilt. Motive may become important mainly in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Here, the prosecution had produced reliable direct evidence.
The Court therefore rejected the argument that the prosecution’s story was doubtful merely because the past relations were outwardly cordial.
Allegation of false implication at the instance of the Mukhia
The second major argument was that the trial court wrongly relied on PW-1 (the Mukhia). Defence described him as a “veteran criminal” and claimed he had enemity with the appellants and used the present case to take revenge.
The Bench considered the location and circumstances of the occurrence. The spot was near the Bakhar of the Mukhia. On the day of the incident, several villagers, including the informant and his son, had gone to the Mukhia’s house to get photographs attested for sugarcane supply cards. The Court observed that the presence of many people at the Mukhia’s house on that day was a natural circumstance, because the Mukhia was formally authorized to attest such photographs.
The Court found no reason why the informant, whose own son had been killed, would act as a “pawn” in the hands of the Mukhia to falsely implicate the accused. The defence did not present any convincing circumstance to suggest that someone else had committed the murder or that the appellants were elsewhere.
The High Court noted that the eye-witnesses withstood cross-examination and consistently deposed about the assault on Nandlal by the accused persons. Their presence at the scene was natural, given the purpose for which they had come to the Mukhia’s house.
Accordingly, the argument that the case was fabricated at the instance of the Mukhia was found to be without merit.
Conflict between medical and eye-witness evidence
The third challenge raised by the appellants was that the medical evidence did not match the eye-witness version. According to prosecution witnesses, appellant Tribhuwan Pandey had placed the muzzle of his katta on Nandlal’s body and fired. Yet, the doctor did not find blackening or charring around the entry wound that one would expect from a contact shot.
PW-7, the doctor, stated that injury no.1 was the entry wound but bore no sign of contact of the barrel of the gun with the skin. He located the wound near the nose, under the left eyebrow, with surrounding bones fractured. A piece of bullet was recovered from the brain matter. The cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to firearm injury.
The Court carefully examined the wording of the fardbeyan and the depositions. PW-3 had written that the firing was from “close range”. In their oral evidence, some witnesses used the word “satakar”. The Bench interpreted this in common village usage as meaning “from a close range”, not necessarily with the barrel touching the body.
The Court pointed out that village pathways are often uneven. It was quite possible that the deceased was standing at a slightly higher level than the assailant. In such a situation, a bullet entering near the nose could well travel upwards into the brain. The semi-liquid nature of brain tissue could explain how the bullet became embedded there and why there was no exit wound.
The trial court had also noted that, though there was no large area of charring, the doctor had found several “pin-head size burnt spots” on the face of the deceased. The High Court agreed that burnt spots include charring and were consistent with a firearm discharge from very close range.
On this analysis, the High Court held that the medical evidence was actually in conformity with the ocular evidence, not contrary to it. Even otherwise, where trustworthy eye-witness accounts exist, a medical opinion suggesting alternative possibilities cannot be conclusive. The Court reiterated that ocular testimony has greater evidentiary value when it is clear and reliable.
Unlawful assembly and role of each accused
The Bench then considered how far each accused was responsible in law. The prosecution evidence showed that accused Chandradeo Pandey ordered a murderous assault on Nandlal. Accused/appellants, including Parsuram Pandey, along with others, surrounded the informant and the deceased, and some caught hold of Nandlal while accused Tribhuwan fired at him.
The witnesses at times named four persons, sometimes two or three, as the ones physically holding the deceased. However, they were consistent that all accused were part of a group that had surrounded the victims with country-made firearms when they were returning from the Mukhia’s house.
The Court recalled the settled position under Section 149 IPC: members of an unlawful assembly are vicariously liable for acts done (1) in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or (2) acts which they knew were likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. It is not necessary that each member performs a specific overt act.
Where several accused assemble with weapons and are actively part of an attack, the prosecution need not prove exactly who did what blow. Every member shares responsibility for offences committed in pursuance of the common object.
In this case, the Court found trustworthy evidence that Tribhuwan fired at close range on the command of Chandradeo, while the others stood armed and participated in surrounding the victim and preventing help from reaching him. Minor contradictions or variations in details, particularly after a long time gap and due to natural loss of memory, were held to be trivial and not sufficient to discard the core of the prosecution version.
Investigation and corroboration
The defence also pointed out that the second Investigating Officer, who had recorded the statements of witnesses, was not examined in court. The High Court noted that PW-8, the first I.O., had visited the place of occurrence and seized blood-stained soil from the spot. The presence of blood at that place corroborated the eye-witness account about where the attack happened.
The Court held that non-examination of the second I.O. did not weaken the prosecution, since the main facts of the investigation, including the place of occurrence and recovery of blood, stood proved through PW-8.
Final decision
After scrutinising the entire oral and documentary evidence, the High Court fully agreed with the trial court’s appreciation of evidence. It found the eye-witnesses to be credible, the medical evidence supportive, and the legal application of Section 302 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act and Section 149 IPC to be correct.
Consequently, it held that both criminal appeals were devoid of merit. By the judgment dated 19.04.2022, the Patna High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 253 of 1995 (as it survived for appellant Parsuram Pandey) and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 293 of 1995 filed by Tribhuwan Pandey. The convictions and sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gopalganj, thus stood confirmed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for several reasons, particularly for villagers and families affected by group violence.
First, the Patna High Court reaffirmed that where several people form an armed group and surround a victim, all of them can be held liable for murder if one of them fires the fatal shot and the others support or facilitate the act. It is not necessary that each person must physically assault the victim.
Second, the Court clarified that minor differences in witness statements about small details, such as exactly who held which limb, do not automatically destroy a case when the main story remains consistent and natural.
Third, the judgment explains that absence of obvious charring does not automatically disprove a close-range shot, especially when the doctor finds burnt spots and the path of the bullet matches the eye-witness account.
For families of victims, this case shows that courts will give weight to genuine eye-witness accounts, even if the accused are villagers known to them and even if the earlier relationship appeared cordial. For accused persons, it underscores that joining an armed group with a common object of violence can carry the same responsibility as pulling the trigger.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the prosecution’s version of the shooting incident and the participation of all accused was trustworthy despite alleged absence of strong motive and cordial past relations.
Answer: Yes. The Court held that motive is not essential in a case based on reliable direct eye-witness evidence, and the prosecution version was consistent and believable. -
Issue: Whether discrepancies between medical evidence and eye-witness accounts regarding the distance of firing created reasonable doubt about the prosecution case.
Answer: No. The Court found that the medical findings, including the entry wound, bullet path and burnt spots, were in conformity with firing from very close range and supported the eye-witness accounts. -
Issue: Whether all accused could be held liable under Section 302/149 IPC when only one person actually fired the shot.
Answer: Yes. The Court held that all members of the armed unlawful assembly, acting with a common object or knowing that murder was likely, were vicariously liable for the offence under Section 149 IPC.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment, as extracted, does not mention or rely on any specific earlier case law by name or citation.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 253 of 1995 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 293 of 1995; arising out of Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 54 of 1992; Sessions Trial No. 249 of 1993/54 of 1993
Case Title: Parsuram Pandey vs. The State of Bihar; with Tribhuwan Pandey vs. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2022 (3) PLJR 108
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Badar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar
Advocates: For the appellants in both appeals – Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate; For the State – Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeals (Division Bench) against conviction and sentence for offences under Section 302 IPC, Section 302/149 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 19.04.2022
Link to the Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
