PARSURAM PANDEY AND ORS V. THE STATE OF BIHAR INSC 642

Parsuram Pandey & Ors v. The State of Bihar 14th October, 2004 P. Venkatarama Reddi, P.P. Naolekar

Facts Raghunath Pandey drove his buffalo to graze in the field of one of the informants who objected to the same, Raghunath abused him and later returned along with the co-accused Parsuram Pandey, Bishram Pandey and Somaru Pandey. Armed with a rifle, guns and a spear. Raghunath fired four shots two of which hit Kanhaiya Ram resulting in his death. Soon after the other accused stated firing at the villagers causing injuries to multiple people. The Trial Court and High Court relied on eyewitness accounts to convict the appellants sentencing them under various sections of the IPC and the Arms act.

Issues Whether the actions of the accused were in furtherance of a common objective of the alleged unlawful assembly? Whether the Parsuram and Bishram shared common intention to kill Kanhaiya? Whether mere presence and actions are sufficient to establish liability for murder? Whether the firing by Parsuram and Bishram constituted an attempted to commit murder under Section 307 IPC? Whether deficiencies in recording statements under Section 313 C.r.P.C caused any prejudice to the appellants?

Holding Appeal of Raghunath was dismissed. Appeal of Parsuram, Bishram, Somaru Pandey was allowed and their conviction under Section 302, 149 and 148 of IPC was set aside. Additionally, the five year RI was to be set aside. Parsuram, Bishram, and Somaru Pandey were convicted under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to three years RI, while the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act was maintained.

Rationale Many of the prosecution witnesses were not the eye witnesses, they did not see the incident happening and reached the spot later. The Court held that while the prosecutions may have exaggerated the incident, it did not undermine the core events that took place according to credible eye witnesses. the testimonies by prosecution witness 6 and 5 that Raghunath returned with a rifle and fired four shots two of which hit Kanhaiya, this was confirmed by the injuries sustained by Kanhaiya. Additionally both the trial court and the High Court found the testimonies of prosecution witness 6 and 5 reliable and convincing, their finding regarding Raghunath Pandey's culpability were based on strong evidence and did not suffer from any inconsistency and hence Raghunath Pandey's conviction for causing the death for Kanhaiya stands.Parsuram and Bishram began firing afterward but there was no clear evidence that their actions specifically targeted or injured Kanhaiya. Moreover, prosecution witness 5 and 6 did not sustain injuries which further helped the Court determine that the firing by the two was not directed at them. The court mentioned that other witnesses also did not identify the two as being responsible for their injuries.Furthermore, the Court held that Pasuram and Bishram's behaviour did not suggest any shared common objective with Raghunath. The prosecution's evidence does not satisfy the elements of Section 149 of the IPC making it inappropriate to convict them for murder. It was noted by the Court that the act of firing without proof of specific intent or knowledge to cause death cannot satisfy requirements of Section 307 of IPC. The nature of injuries and lack of direct evidence regarding the specific individuals targeted negates the intention to commit murder. Hence the Court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not establish Mens Rea for an offence under Section 307 IPC, therefore Parsuram and Bishram were acquitted under Section 307 IPC as the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.The court upheld the conviction of Parsuram, Bishram, and Somaru Pandey under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC as they firing and spear-hurling even though was not premeditated, were still voluntary acts linked to a common intention to prevent retaliation. Additionally, the nature of the injuries does not negate the application of Section 324 IPC when dangerous weapons are involved.The Court noted that there was deficiency from the Trial Court regarding the recording of the statements as they did not effectibely allow the accussed to address the evidence reflecting a failure of Section 313 C.r.P.C. However, the accused failed to establish any resulting prejudice from the same and therefore the conviction could not be set aside solely on this ground.