Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Friday held former Rashtriya Janta Dal (RJD) MP Prabhunath Singh, guilty of shooting down two persons, for allegedly voting against him in 1995, stating that this case was an “exceptionally painful episode of our criminal justice system”.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S Oka and Vikram Nath convicted Singh of the offences under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC and directed his production in custody before the court on September 1 for pronouncement of sentence.

The top court allowed the appeal filed by Harendra Rai against the Patna High Court's judgement of December 2, 2021 which had upheld the trial court's decision of October 24, 2008, acquitting Singh and six others of all the charges related to killing of Rajendra Rai, 18, and Daroga Rai, 47, near a polling booth in Chhapra. 

It noted a "clear and deliberate lapse" as well as "tainted role" by the prosecution in not producing the investigating officer and other witnesses.

The bench relied upon a statement of injured Rajendra Rai, who subsequently died of gun shot injuries, saying it is to be read as a dying declaration.

"The dying declaration and the statement of Lalmuni Devi (mother of deceased) fully establish that it was Prabhunath Singh, who had caused the injuries from his firearm weapon, which proved to be fatal for two out of the three injured and also caused injury to the third surviving injured witness, namely Smt Lalmuni Devi," the bench said.

In its strong observations, the top court said the High Court as well as the trial court failed to exercise their powers to summon the witnesses of the charge-sheet to prove the police papers. 

"Despite applications being filed to summon persons who were not shown as witnesses to the charge-sheet, the trial court repeatedly rejected the said applications in 2006 and again in 2008 on the flimsy grounds that were not named in the charge-sheet or that the Public Prosecutor had not filed such application in gross violation of Section 311 CrPC," the bench said.

Justice Nath, who authored the 143-page judgement, noted everything was going as per the plan and wish of the main accused Prabhunath Singh, a political leader and a sitting Member of Parliament at the relevant time as he had mustered full support of the administration and the investigating; he had influenced and won over almost all the witnesses of fact mentioned in the charge sheet (who were declared hostile), the relevant formal witnesses including the investigating officer were not produced in the trial by the prosecution.

"The Public Prosecutor prosecuting the case was supporting the defence, the Presiding Officers were completely insensitive towards their pious duty, but everything turned upside down when he committed a glaring mistake and that one mistake cost him heavily. He got the court witness, Smt Lalmuni Devi, mother of deceased Rajendra Rai abducted ten days before the date fixed for recording her statement. This led to filing of a Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court, a report submitted by the Inspecting Judge result of an unruly incident which occurred inthe Trial Court on the date Smt Lalmuni Devi CW-1 deposed before the Trial Court and another report of the Inspecting Judge commenting upon the judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court," the bench said.

Devi had recorded her statement before the High Court that she and her husband were abducted by Dina Nath Singh, brother of Singh and others and was threatened if she did not change her statement, her other son and the appellant would also be killed. Her family members were assaulted inside the courtroom in presence of trial judge, who said nothing, the court noted.

The bench referred the High Court's judgement of March 13, 2007 in habeas corpus petition to the extent of the subsequent conduct of the accused, deplorable functioning of the public prosecutor, police administration and the presiding officer of the trial court to extend undesirable favour to the accused.

"In the case with which we are dealing, there is no iota of doubt that the accused-Respondent No.2 (Singh) was instrumental in making all possible efforts to wipe out the evidence against him and the Prosecution machinery as also the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, if we may say so, was used as a tool of his high-handedness," the bench said.

The court said in the present case, the FIR, being a public document and a dying declaration of the informant, is the foundation of the entire prosecution case.

"The High Court ought to have considered the checkered history of events that occurred in the case, resulting in the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court in the Habeas Corpus Petition containing serious observations about the conduct of all the stakeholders of the said criminal trial and also the impact of the report of the Inspecting Judge dated 04.05.2009," the bench said.

The bench also found no serious discrepancy or variation in the testimony of CW-1, Devi with regard to the sequence of events that occurred during the incident in question. 

It said a witness, like the CW-1 of the present case, cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. The variations of trivial nature in her testimony are liable to be ignored. The very sentence uttered by her at the end of her examination that “her son had asked her to take the name of the accused before the Court” is not so surprising in a case like the present one, the court said. 

"When the entire family of CW-1 was facing so many storms, it is quite natural for a son to say to his mother (who was old, illiterate, rustic woman having faced immense trauma) that she should not forget to disclose the name of accused persons, in as much as the second occasion of her examination, as ordered by the Division Bench of High Court under Section 311 of CrPC, was the last opportunity for her to speak the truth before the Trial Court," the bench said.

The top court pointed out this Court is conscious of the fact that a path different from the normal is being adopted to determine the guilt of the accused. The Court is compelled to do so in the glaringly peculiar facts of the present case, it said.

"We have noticed that the three main stake holders in a criminal trial, namely the Investigating Officer that is the part of the police of the State of Bihar, the Public Prosecutor, and the Judiciary, have all utterly failed to keep up their respective duties and responsibilities cast upon them," the bench said. 

Case Title: Harendra Rai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Click here to read more