ANIL KUMAR ALIAS PINTU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Nazir was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.'] and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was further convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Appellant Anil Kumar @ Pintu along with Niraj Kumar, Dhiraj Kumar and Anand Kumar was convicted under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They were further convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. On appeals being preferred, the High Court confirmed the convictions and sentences. Against the order of the High Court, accused Niraj Kumar, Dhiraj Kumar and Anand Kumar did not move this Court by filing any special leave petition whereas the present appeals have been filed by appellants, Anil Kumar @ Pintu and Nazir.

(2.) In support of its case, the prosecution has relied upon two dying declarations; one is said to have been made before Surendra Prasad Singh (P.W.12) and another before Madan Prasad Singh (P.W.13). One dying declaration is an oral one which is said to have been made before Surendra Prasad Singh (P.W.12) and the another one is said to have been recorded by Madan Prasad Singh (P.W.13), which has been marked as 'Exhibit 5'. So far as dying declarations are concerned, the Trial Court has refused to place reliance thereupon after giving cogent reasons for the same. The reasoning of the Trial Court, in our view, cannot be said to be perverse but we are of the view that the view taken by it was a reasonable one.

(3.) The other evidence is the statement of Sushil Kumar Pathak (P.W.6). The accused persons were not known to this witness. He has disclosed their names for the first time in the Sessions Court. No test identification parade was conducted. It is well-settled that in cases where accused is not known to the witness, ordinarily, the identification of an accused for the first time in court should be corroborated by previous identification in the test identification parade. We do not find any extra- ordinary reason for accepting the evidence of the witness on the question of identification of the accused persons for the first time in court. This being the position, it is not possible to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.6.