Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding the evidence reliable and the trial and appellate courts' findings correct.

Summary

Seven accused, including Hari Badan Rai, were tried for the murder of Ram Krishna Singh and the concealment of his dead body under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution proved that the accused attacked the victim with weapons, disposed of his body in a river, and that a decomposed head and bones recovered later were positively identified as the victim's by multiple eyewitnesses. Post‑mortem examination revealed injuries consistent with the alleged assault, and witnesses also established a motive linked to a prior dispute. Both the trial court and the Patna High Court convicted the accused, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder and three years for concealment. The Supreme Court, after examining the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and the investigation, found no infirmity in the lower courts' findings and dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions.

Issues considered

Whether the evidence, including eyewitness identification of the victim's remains, is sufficient to sustain convictions under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC.
Whether there were any infirmities in the investigation or appreciation of evidence that warrant overturning the convictions.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murderconcealment of dead bodycommon intentionidentification of remainseyewitness testimonyIPC sections 302 201 34conviction upheld

Judgment

A HARi BADAN RAI AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR

DECEMBER 8, 2004

B
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]
.J
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : llr

Ss. 302134 and 201/34~Victim killed by accused-lnciden( sebn by
C eye witnesses:...._Body-thr;wn in river_:_Decomposed head and bones
recovered-Head identified as that ofdeceased-Remnants bf body indicating
injuries-Motive of crime proved-Conviction and sen.t~nce as awarded by
trial court and affirmed by High Court, not interfered with.

D Appellants, alongwith another accused, were prosecuted under
sections 31)2/34 and 201134 IPC. The prosecution case was that they
attacked the deceased witli various weapons and killed him. The incident
was witnessed by PWs 5, 7 and 8, who were threatened an.~ chased away
by the a_cs~sed persons: Thereafter the accused took the body in a boat
and thre~. iH~·tbe river. During the investigation a decomposed head,
E which was· identified as that of the deceased, and some bones were
recovered. The trial court convicted all the accused persons of the
offences charged. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
One of the accused died pending appeal before the High Court. Therefore,
the present appeal was filed by the remaining six ,accused.
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
.. . l -

· HELD : The incident was witnessed by PWs 5, 7 and 8. The
witnesses also clearly identified the head portion of the body recovered
as that of the deceased. The ·post-mortem report indicated that certain
G marks of injuries were found on th,e remnants tif the de~d, body. There
is clear and con.vincing evidence of PWs 5, 7 and 8 to prov~ the motive
for the crime. No flaw is found in tlieappreciation of the evidence of
the' w•tn~sses.
~ .... •
The investigation. w'as
f ~ •
also cond!!cted
,... .
prop11rly ' and
•
no
infirmity Uter~in was pointed o-..t. There is nq reason to'in.te_r·fe~e with )
H the finding recorded by the High Court. (778-ll, G; 779-B, 'Sl.
77/:.
H.B. RAI v. STATE [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 777

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal A
No. 1419 of2003.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.2003 of the Patna High Court
in Crl.A. (D.B.) No. 316 of 1995.

B
L. Nageswara Rao, Ajai Bhalla, Rajeev Singh, Ms. Abha R. Sharma,
Ms. Sunita Singh and Rajesh Pd. Singh for the Appellants.

B.B. Singh and Kumar Rajesh Singh for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. : Seven accused persons were tried by
the 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chapra in Bihar for the
offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 201 read with Section
34 IPC. All of them were found guilty and were sentenced to undergo D '4
imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section-
34 IPC and for the offence under Section 201 each of them was sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for three years.

All the seven accused jointly filed an appeal before the High Court.
During the pendency of the appeal, A-1 Dublal Rai died and the H.igh Court E
by the impugned Judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence of all the
appellants. The Judgment of the Division Bench is challenged before us.

The prosecution case is that on 29.12.1986 at about 7.00 a.m. deceased
Ram Krishna Singh along with his relatives and co-villagers had gone to F
Dariyaoganj Ghat to sprinkle milk on the ashes at the funeral place of his
mother who had died on the previous day. After completing these rituals,
deceased Ram Krishna Singh was coming back with Uma Singh, Birendra
Singh and Kapil Singh. The first informant and others remained there for
few winutes to take a bath in the river. When Ram Krishna Singh and others
reached in front of the hO\l.se of Sant Lal Rai A-1 Dublal Rai (since dead)
I .
G
and other accused persons attacked Ram Krishna Singh with various weapons.
A-1 Dublal Rai e·xhorted other •~cused persons to kill Ram Krishna Singh.
A-2 Hafi A~dan Rai and A-3 Par~ R.ai gave bhala blows on the right chest
and left abdomen of.deceased Ram Krishna ~B1 0h. ~am Krishna Singh fell
in the ditch, and accused persons continued to cause vario.usinfories on him.
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A The persons who were with deceased Ram Krishna Singh were threatened
by the accused and they could not save Ram Krishna Singh. The accused
then brought a bamboo raft and the dead body of Ram Krishna Singh was
tied over the bamboo raft. Some of the villagers came there but the assailants
chased them away and the body of Ram Krishna Singh was taken to the river.
B They took him on a boat and rowed the boat towards south east and .t}Jrew
the body of Ram Krishna Singh in the river. The first informant, th~ son
of deceased Ram Krishna Singh went to the police station and the case was
registered on the same day. On 4.1.1987, during the course of the investig~tion,
the decomposed head and some bones were recovered from the rive,r at
village Bhabangawan and after investigation, a final report was filed.
c
The prosecution examined 17 witnesses. PW 5, 7 and 8 are eye-
witnesses. To prove that the skull and other bones recovered by the police
were that of deceased Ram Krishna Singh,. PW 3 Nitya Nand, PW 4 Raj
Ballabh Singh, PW 6 Raghubansh Singh, PW 7 Kapil Singh and PW 8 Ajay
D Kumar..Singh were examined. PW 6 Raghubansh Singh deposed that after
(fie murder, he carried out a search for the dead body and on 4.1.1987, he
came to know that the dead body was lying in the river at Bhabangawa. He
went there at 10.00 AM and met the Mukhiya of the village and others. He
also deposed that the head portion of the dead body was found tied in a cloth
and it was in his presence that the cloth bundle was opened and he found
E that the head was that of Ram Krishna Singh. He also deposed that it was
in a highly decomposed state and that after 10-15 minutes, the flesh started
disintegrating. PW 11, the Investigation Officer also supported the evidence
of PW 6. The dead body was identified by PW 3 Nitya Nand, PW 4 Raj
Ballabh Singh, PW 7 Kapil Singh and PW 8 Ajay Kumar Singh and inquest
F of the dead body was held at the Sadar Hospital Chapra. These witnesses
clearly deposed that they could identify· the head portion as that of Ram
Krishna Singh.

PW 10 Dr. B.N. Mishra, conducted the post-mortem examination. It
G is important to note that certain marks of injuries were found on the remnants
of the dead body. Only some of the bones could be recovered and were :..
available for post-mortem examination and PW 15 Dr. N.K. Jha, Professor
& Head of the Department of Anatomy gave an opinion that the bones were
of a male aged above 45 years. There is clear and convincing evidence of
PW 5, PW 7 Kapil Singh and PW 8 Ajay Kumar Singh to prove the motive
H for the crime. The Trial Court as well as the High Court placed reliance on
H.B. RAI v. STATE [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 779

evidence of these witnesses and as regards the motive, PW 8 Ajay Kumar A
deposed that one Lok Nath Rai, the father of A-2 Hari Badan Rai and A-
S Gyan Chand Rai was caught and produced before Ram Krishna Singh
alleging that he had committed theft of cattle and deceased Ram Krishna
Singh said that Lok Nath Rai be produced before the police, but on the way
to the police station, he died. The appellants believed that he must have been B
done to death at the instance of Ram Krishna Singh. The evidence of PW
5, PW 7 and PW 8 have been critically examined and analysed by the High
Court We do not find any flow in the appreciation of the evidence of these
witnesses. The investigation was also conducted properly and the learned
Counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity. We do not find
any reason to disagree with the finding of the Division Bench of the High C
Court.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

R.P. Appeal dismissed. D