Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the appellants under Section 302 IPC, finding the motive and the eyewitness evidence sufficient to prove intentional murder.

Summary

The case concerns the murder of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh on 13 January 1983, when accused Prem Kumar (Accused No.1) and Ramesh Singh (Accused No.2) entered a bus and fired rifles at the victim, killing him instantly. The trial court convicted the two accused under Section 302 IPC and also under Section 307 IPC; the High Court affirmed the murder convictions but set aside the Section 307 convictions. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the motive of enmity, the eyewitness testimony, and the lack of recovered firearms affected the validity of the murder convictions. The Court held that a fully established motive is highly relevant to prove intent and that the consistent eye‑witness accounts, post‑mortem findings and the circumstances of the attack sufficiently proved the accused’s guilt despite the absence of the weapons. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions under Section 302 IPC.

Issues considered

Whether motive, when fully established, is a relevant factor in proving intent for a murder charge under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC can stand despite the non‑recovery of the rifles and lack of ballistic evidence.
Whether the evidence of eye‑witnesses and post‑mortem report is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC should be set aside.

Legislation cited

Arms Acts. 27
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 8
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 27, s. 302, s. 307, s. 34

Subjects

murdermotiveintenteye‑witness testimonyfirearmsIPC Section 302conviction upheldevidenceballistic evidenceSection 307enmitySupreme Court

Judgment

{
)

PREM KUMAR AND ANR. A
I
v.
STATE OF BIHAR

MARCH 2, 1995
B
(DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.)

Indian Penal Code, /860: S.302-Murder-Motive-Relevancy of-
Held, motive alleged against accused, if fully established, is· a very relevant
and important aspect to highlight intention of accused and the approach to
be made in appreciating totality of circumstances including evidence disclosed: C
it provides a foundational materiql to connect the chain of circumstan-
ce~inding of Courts below that accused, due to enmity, committed murder.
of deceased intentionally is justified and their conviction is proper and unas-
sailable.
D
The appellants (accused nos. 1 and 2 before the trial court) and some
other persons were charged for offences under s.302 and s.307 I.P.C. The
prosecution case was that there was enmity .between the families of the
informant and the accused. Accused no. 1 was the son of accused no. 6 and
accused no. 2 was his nephew. Brother of accused no. 2 was alleged to have
been murdered by one of the members of the informant's family (the E
deceased in the present case). On 13.1.1983, when the murder case was still
pending, and the deceased accompapied by P.Ws 1, 2, and 8 and some other
persons was returning in a bus after attending the said case, the bus
stopped at a bus stop at about 6.30 P.M.; meanwhile accused nos. 1, 2 and
./ 6 and some other persons reached there in a car and a jeep; on the p
instigation of accused no. 6, accused nos. 1 and 2, armed with rifles, went
inside the bus and fired at the deceased who died instantaneously; two
other co-passengers, P.Ws. 5 and 6, were also injured in the firing. On
receiving the information, the police reached the place of occurrence;
P.W.8 made a statement of occurrence to the police and on its basis the
case was registered. The Investigating Officer sent P.Ws. 5 and 6 for G
medical examination. He prepared inquest report of the dead body and
sent it for autopsy. The post-mortem report indicated that there were
injuries caused by firearm on the victim, which resulted in his death. The
accused surrendered before the Court and were arrested and charge-
sheeted. The trial culminated in conviction of accused nos. 1, 2 and 6. H
455
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A Accused nos. 1 & 2 were convicted under s.302 I.P.C. and were sentenced
to ifuprisonment for life. They were also convicted under s.307 l.P.C. and
' /
were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Accused no. 6
was convicted under s.302 read with s.34 IPC and was sentenced to
imprisonment for life. All the three accused filed an appeal before the High
B Court, which set aside the conviction and sentence of accused no. 6 under
s.302 read with S.34 IPC and conviction and sentence of accused no. 1 &
2 under s.307 IPC. It, however, affirmed the conviction and sentence of
accused nos. 1 & .2 under s.302 IPC. Aggrieved, accused nos. 1 and 2 filed
the appeal by special leave.

C It was contended for the appellants that PWs 1 to 8 were not really
eye-witnesses and they were not able to depose as to who fired the final
shot and when; there was inconsistency in the prosecution evidence, and
the statement in the FIR was not fully substantiated; and that it was not
clear whether the injuries to the deceased were caused by rifles or by guns.

D Dismissing the appeal, the Court /

HELD : 1.1. In a case when motive alleged against the accused is
fully established, it provides a foundational material to connect the chain
of circumstances, and affords a key or pointer, to scan the evidence in the
E case, in that perspective and as a satisfactory Circumstance of corrobora·
tion. It is .a very relevant and important aspect, (a) to highlight the
_ intention of the accused and (b) the approach to be made in appreciating
the totality of the circumstances, including the evidence disclosed in the
case. [463-G-H]

F State of U.P. v. Moti Ram and Ors., [1990) SCC 389, referred to.

1.2. In the instant case, the finding of the courts below that accused
nos. 1 and 2, due to enmity had committed the murder of the deceased
intentionally by firing repeated shots at him from their respective rifles,
is justified and their conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
G is proper and unassailable. [469-B]

2.1. The FIR and the deposition of the eye witnesses PWs. 1, 2, S, and
8, clearly bring out the fact that accused nos. 1 and 2, armed with rifles,
reached the place ·of occurrence in a jeep and a car with a few other
H persons; that they got into the bus and fired indiscriminately at the
(
PREM KR. v. STATEOFBIHAR 457

deceased. P.W. 5, a forest officer, who himself sustained injuries, has;also A
stated as an independent witness that h_e knew the deceased wbo 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 the deceased in the same bus, that the bus stopped at the place of
occurrem:e to drop a passenger, at that time accused Nos. 1 and 2 came B
in a jeep and a car with rifles, from behind, along with others, surrounded
the bus and after proclaiming that the deceased was inside the bus and he
y
should be cut into pieces, they entered the bus and fired indiscriminately,
at the deceased which resulted in his death instantaneously. (467-A-C]

2.2. PW.4, the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination C
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. The post-mortem report along with the evidence of the medical
witness PW.4 substantiates that the injuries sustained by the deceased
were as a result of shots received from the fire arms and that they were
fatal. Such injuries were sustained by the deceased only due to the shots D
received from the fire arms, employed by the accused against hini while in
the bus as spoken to by eye witnesses PWs. 1, 2, 5 and 8. The direct evidence
in the case, amply corroborated by motive of the accused, positively points
out the intention of the accused to murder the deceased. [467-D-G]
E
3. The rifles used by accused Nos. 1 and 2 were never recovered. So,
the prosecution could not, in the circumstances, allege that a particular
identifiable weapon was used in committing the crime. There was nothing
to be examined by the ballistic· expert. [468-G]

Mohinder Singh v. The State, [1950] SCR 821, explained and distin· F
guished.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
434of1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.89 of the Patna High Coutt G
in Cd.A.No. 90of1987(R).

Rajender Singh and M.P. Jha for the Appellants.

H.L. Agrawal and B.B. Singh for the Respondent. H

,•
1'
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PARIPOORNAN, J. The appellants in this appeal, Prem Kumar
Singh @Prem Singh S/o Mundrika Singh and Ramesh Singh S/o Chandrika
Singh, are Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Trial No. 219 of 1983,
B Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau. They have filed this appeal against
the affirmance of their conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code,
by the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, by Judgment dated
8.9.1989. The above two accused, along with one Mundrika Singh, Accused
-. "
No. 6, father of Accused No. 1 Prem Singh, and eight others were charge-
sheeted to stand Sessions Trial for the murder of one Tarkeshwar Prasad
C Singh on 13.1.1983 at 6.30 p.m. at a place known as Ketat. Accused Nos.
1 and 2 were charged for offence under section 302 read with section 34
IPC for causing the murder of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. They were also
charged for offence under section 307/34 IPC for attempting to cause
murder of Ghanshyam Languri and Rajnath Tewari, two co-passengers,
D who boarded the bus along with Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. The remaining
nine accused persons were charged for offences under section 302/149 IPC.
Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh was charged for offence under section 147
IPC also, whereas the ten other accused persons were further charged for
offence under section 148 IPC read with section 27 of the Arms Act. All
the accused persons pleaded not guilty for each of the charges framed
E against them. The defence plea was that the death of Tarkeshwar Prasad
Singh in the bus, belonging to Santosh Transport Company, might have
been caused at the. hands of some unknown dacoits and the accused
persons have been falsely implicated by the informant because of long
drawn enmity between the parties. The plea of alibi was also put forward
F by Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh, Accused No. 1 Prem Singh, Accused
No. 10 Raja Dixit and Accused No. 7 Muni Dixit. On an analysis of the
entire evidence in the case, the Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, by
judgment dated 9.6.1987, held that on instigation given by Accused No. 6
Mundrika Singh to kill Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, the deceased, Accused
No. 1 Prem Singh and Accused no. 2 Ramesh Singh intentionally caused
G the death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh by firing at him with their rifles in
consequence of which Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh died instantaneously on
the spot. It was also found that in the same act, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 also
caused rifle shot injury on PW 5 and 6 knowing fully well that in the
circumstances, by their act of firing inside the bus, it was likely to cause
H the death of other passengers also and such act was an attempt to commit
PREM KR. v. STAIBOFBIHAR[PARIPOORNAN,J.) 459

murder of PW5 and 6. The Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that A
there is absolutely no evidence of any other attack by the remaining
accused persons (other than Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6). The offence under ·.
section 27 of the Arms Act was also not proved against such persons. In
the result Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh was found guilty under section
302 read with section 34 IPC and convicted thereunder. Accused nos. '
and 2 were found guilty for offence under section 302 IPC for causing the
B
murder of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh and they were convicted thereunder.
They were also found guilty for offence under section 307 IPC for attempt-
ing to commit the murder of PWS and 6 and were accordingly convicted.
Except accused Nos. 1 and 2 and 6, the other accused were not found guilty
for any of the charges framed against them and they were acquitted and C
discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds. Accused Nos.
1 and 2 were sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC.
Accused No. 6 was also sentenced to imprisonment for life under section
302 read with section 34 IPC. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were further sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for their conviction D
under section 307 IPC. It was further held that both the sentences passed
against the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall run concurrently. Accused Nos. 1,
2 and 6 filed Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1987 before the High Court of
Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi. A Division Bench of the High Court, after
a very detailed discussion of the entire evidence, by judgment dated
8.9.1989, acquitted accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh and confirmed the E
conviction of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. The conviction of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under section 307 IPC was
set aside. The High Court observed that case of Accused No. 6 Mundrika
Singh is not free from doubt and the case against him appears to be similar
,/ to the other co-accused, who were acquitted by the Sessions judge. In this F
view, the conviction of Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh, appellant No. 3
before the High Court, was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge.
---'(.· But as regards Accused nos. 1 and 2 the High Court came to the conclusion
that though their conviction and sentence under section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code are liable to be set aside, their conviction and sentence under
section 302 IPC were justified. It is against the aforesaid Judgment of the G
High Court dated 8.9.1989 Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have filed the above
Criminal Appeal before this court as per special leave granted in SLP
(Crl.) No. 2059/89 dated 22.7.1991.

2. We heard Sri Rajender Singh, learned senior counsel for the H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 2S.C.R.

A appefut~ and Sri H.L. Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the respon-
dent. Acc,used No. 6 Mundrika Singh and one Chandrika Singh are
br~thers. Accused No. 1 Prem Singh is the son of Mundrika Singh. Ac-
cused No. 2 Ramesh Singh is the son of Chandrika Singh. It is alleged that
one R~, brother of Accused No. 1 Prem Singh, and Bishwanath, brother
B ,. of Acc~d No. 2 Ramesh Singh, were murdered by Tarkeshwar Prasad
~ Singh and others on 2.10.1982. The case was still pending when the incident
·relevant to the instant case happened on 13.1.1983 at about 6.30 p.m. at
Ke~;: .It is fairly clear from the evidence in the case, that enmity exists
be~en the members of the appellants' family and those of the deceased
family:: The prosecution alleged that on 13.1.1983 after attending the hear-
C ing of the murder case of Rajan and Bishwanath at Daltonganj, Tarkeshwar '
y'
Prasad Singh accompanied by Bashishth Narain Singh, PW 1, Ran Vijay
Pratap Deo, PW 2 and Dudhnath Singh, PW 8, as also Sheo Pratap Singh
and Ramadhar Pathak, boarded the bus bearing Registration No. BRO
3555 of Santosh Transport Company, for returning to Rehla at 5.30 p.m.,
D and the bus stopped for a while at the, stop of Ketat, when car bearing
Registration No. WMB 5989 came from behind and stopped in front of
the bus. The time was about 6.30 p.m. Then Accused Nos. 2 and 6 and
their colleagues Satyender Singh, Muni Dixit and Raja Dixit- go down from
the car. Accused No. 6 was empty handed but the remaining persons were
E armed with rifles. In the meanwhile Jeep bearing Registration No. BRO
2770, which also arrived from the side of Daltonganj, stopped in front of
the bus. From that jeep, Accused No. 1, armed with a rifle, and his
colleagues Rajeshwar Singh, Bishwanath Singh, Parsuram Dixit, Basistha
Dixit, Fakira Dixit and Chandardban Singh and two other unknown per-
sons, all armed with guns alike, alighted. The accused and other co-culprits
F started proclaiming that as Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was inside the bus,
he should be cut into pieces. On hearing this, the passengers of the bus
were struck with terror and started fleeing away. Passengers were in the
process of getting down from front and rear entrances. At that time
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came inside the bus from the front entrance. PW 8
G Dudhnath Singh, in order to hide his identity, had wrapped his face with
the chadar and rus!:ed towards the back door of the bus, when he saw
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 firing indiscriminately at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.
In that firing Ram Raj Pandey - PW 5, a forest guard, and Ghanshyam
Languri-PW 6, a police official, also received injuries. PW 8 Dudhnath
H Singh had by that time managed to get down from the bus like mab.y other
·>-
PREM KR. v. STAIBOFBIHAR(PARIPOORNAN,J.) 461

passengers and he concealed himself nearby in thick bushes. On knowing A .
that ,Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh had died, the accused and others raised
victory slogans and fled towards Daltonganj in their car and jeep. On
hearing the news, Sub Inspector Sachchidanand Deo, PW 14, entered the
information as Entry No. 195 (Ex. 4) at 7.00 p.m. in Rehla Police Station
and rushed to the place of occurrence, arriving there at 7.15 p.m. On seeing B
the Police PW 8 Dudhnath Singh came out of the hiding and made a
statement (Ex.5) which was sent to the Police Station, Bishrampur and on
this basis the case was registered vide FIR (Ex.7) at 9.00 p.m. PW 5 and 6
were transported to Daltonganj hospital. Though the search was made for
the culprits they were not found. The Sub Inspector returned to the spot
at about 1.30 a.m. and prepared the inquest report with respect to the dead C
body of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh.· He lifted three live gun cartridges, one
of such empty cartridge and 4 empty rifle cartridges vide seizure memo Ex.
9. PW 1 Bashishth Narain Singh and Bipin Bihari Singh· attested the
documents prepared at the spot. The dead body of Tarkeshwar Prasad
Singh was subjected to post-mortem examination by Dr. R.K.P. Pandey D
(PW 4). One Dr. K Singh conducted medical examination of PW 5 and 6.
Statements of driver, conductor and other witnesses were recorded. The
accused surrendered in court and were arrested later and charge-sheeted.
One of the accused Chandardhan Singh was subsequently murdered on
23.6.1983. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 were sentenced and other accused were
acquitted by Sessions Judge. E
3. The post-mortem examination of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was
conducted by PW 4 on 14.1.1983 at 10.50 a.m. at Sub-divisional Hospital,
Daltonganj. The record relating thereto discloses the following injuries.
F
1. Six oval lacerated wounds with inverted margins of the sizes
. -_Af varying from 114" to 1/2" in diameter on the middle and left side
of the front of the chest;

2. One oval lacerated wound with inverted margins of the size 3/4"
in diameter on the upper part of the left side of abdomen with G
-~ two metal pieces of embodied in the wound;

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. H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A 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.
B
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 ~.._
were caused by fire arms. Death of Tarkeshwar Singh had been
caused by shock and hemorrhage as a result of above noted 'yii
c 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)
E 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
F 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.

G 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.] 463

5. Certain crucial aspects appearing in the case deserve to be high- A
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- G
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
H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [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 :-
B "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
'

v
person who had the motive to_ commit a crime actually committed,
it, although such evidence along would not ordinarily be sufficient.
c Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act any fact is relevant which
I
I

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
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.
F
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.] 465

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
him, there was indiscriminate firing in the bus. PW 5, a forest officer and
F
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 G
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
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (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
Singh is in it, he should be taken out and cut into pieces. The persons
·c 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.] 467

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
B
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.
D
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- F
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
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [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 ••
y--
causelt py the rifle or by the gun. The plea was that the cartridges
C 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
F
with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have
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-
PREM KR. v. STA1EOFBIHAR(PARIPOORNAN,J.] 469

stood in the above peculiar context. There is no merit in this plea. A
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.

1,/

,/

~ ..