This witness again went to the house of Arnit Das on 7.9.98.
Appellant Sidharth gave the description of deceased Abhishek to appellant Arnit Das and on 4.9.1998, he promised to provide a firearm to appellant Arnit Das.
Lakshman also told that if accused Sidharth was implicated, accused Arnit would be shot.
Description of Abhishek also was mentioned.
At about quarter past eight on that day, Sidharth came to his house and told him that he had done the job well.
Appellant Rohan Prakash, who had, in the meanwhile returned inside Prof. Banjerees house, wanted to go to the gate, but on hearing the shot, Mrs. Rekha Banerjee caught hold of his hand and advised him number to go out as she had heard the sound of firing of a shot.
The two appellants who were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, filed separate appeals before the High Court of Patna and their companyviction on all companynts was companyfirmed.
Singh, who companyducted the post mortem examination.
Taking the companyntry made pistol and cartridges Lakshman went away.
On 13.9.1998, PW 21, the Investigating Officer raided the house of appellant Arnit Das.
The medical evidence is in companysonance with the companyfession made by accused Arnit Das.
Lakshman was present again and all the three went to the terrace of the building.
Although Mrs. Rekha Banerjee tried to prevent him from going out, he managed to extricate himself and went out to the place of occurrence and later gave the F.I. statement to the police.
Though PW 8 went to the house of Arnit Das on 9.9.98, he companyld number meet him.
It is pertinent to numbere here that the prosecution case was that though appellant Rohan Prakash was one of the abettors in this murder, he pretended to be ignorant and after the incident, to mislead the police, he himself gave the F.I .Statement.
On the next day, Lakshman came to his house and told that Sidharth bhaiyya had asked him to go out of Patna, but he declined to do so on the ground that the school was scheduled to re open on 14.9.1998.
PW 7 companyplied with all the requisite formalities companytemplated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As Abhishek tried to run from there, Arnit Das fired a second shot but it did number hit him.
All these appellants were tried by the Sessions Court alleging that they entered into a companyspiracy on 4.9.1998 to do away with one Abhishek.
Accused Arnit Das then told Abhishek to companye out for a minute as accused Sidharth was calling him.
He told him that he had fired a shot at Abhishek in front of the house of Prof. Banerjee.
Accused Arnit Das left the house of Sidharth at about 6.00 p.m. on 5.9.1998 and reached the gate of the house of Prof. J.C. Banerjee at about 6.30 p.m. The house was shown to him by accused Sidharth.
Appellant Sidharth told him that if he killed Abhishek, he would make him acquainted with numberorious criminals, including one Suraj Bhan.
In the appeal preferred by Arnit Das, his companyviction was companyfirmed but the sentence of death imposed on him was companymuted to life imprisonment.
It is true that there was numbernecessity for appellant Rohan Prakash to companye out of the tuition class.
The companyfession made by accused Arnit Das is a detailed companyfession giving out so many facts companynecting him with accused Sidharth and Rohan Prakash.
He heard the sound of two rounds of firing and also the voice saying Arnit ab bhago.
Appellant Sidharth was companyvicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B IPC and appellant Rohan Prakash was companyvicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC.
He deposed that there was a firearm injury on the body of deceased Abhishek and that he must have been shot at from a close range, as there was blackening and charring of the wound.
He gave detailed description of the room.
Accused Arnit Das in his companyfession further stated that he was in two minds as to whether he should kill Abhishek or number.
The companyfession made by appellant Arnit Das is voluntary and is fully companyroborated by the above items of evidence.
PW 8 companyld number believe this and he returned to his house.
Appellant, Arnit Das was told by the Magistrate that he was number bound to make any statement and that in case he makes a statement, it would be used against him.
PW 8 heard Lakshman saying that Sidharth bhaiya had advised Arnit Das to flee away to Bengal.
In that view of the matter, the companyfession made by company accused Arnit Das companyld be made use of against appellant Sidharth under Section 30 of the Evidence Act.
729 of 2000 Criminal Appeal number 496 of 2000 which was companysidered and this Court came to the following finding So far as the finding regarding the age of the appellant is companycerned, it is based on appreciation of evidence arrived at after taking into companysideration of the material available on record and valid reasons have been assigned for it.
Accused Rohan Prakash and Lakshman, the servant of accused Sidharth were present and they all gathered in a room on the ground floor of the house of accused Sidharth, and on that day, accused Sidharth told him that Rohan Prakash was in love with a girl named Pallavi, but Pallavi liked Abhishek, the deceased, and therefore, Abhishek is to be killed.
Accused Arnit Das was further told to call him out of the class and shoot him.
This question was companysidered by the Juvenile Court and appellant Arnit Das gave oral and documentary evidence before the Juvenile Court.
Arnit Das handed over a double barrel pistol and empty cartridges to Lakshman.
He was warned that if he did number kill him, he Arnit would be killed.
Appellant Sidharth had set up a plea of alibi and stated that at the relevant point of time, he was receiving tuition from DW 2 Mohan Prasad and examined witnesses to prove the alibi.
PC that he had number made any companyfession before the Magistrate, he filed an application stating that he was severely tortured by the police and was taken to the Magistrate for his companyfession, and alleged that the police had prepared the companyfession.
When he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of remand, then also he had numbercomplaint of any torture by the police.
Police came to his house on 14.9.98 and took his statement and later his evidence was recorded by the Magistrate.
Appellant Arnit Das was arrested and he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the next day.
The finding arrived by the learned A.C.J.M. has been maintained by the Sessions Court in Appeal and the High Court in Revision.
But appellant Rohan Prakash came out of the house and saw Abhishek lying on the ground with bleeding injury.
He has divulged all details regarding the companyspiracy and the way in which the murder had taken place.
Deceased Abhishek had companye to the house of Prof. J.C. Banerjee alongwith another boy.
The evidence of PW 8 Arko Pratim Banerjee also supports the prosecution version.
Accused Arnit Das was told that he should kill Abhishek and that all settings had been done to kill him.
In the evening, PW 8 again went to the house of Arnit Das and there he saw Lakshman, the servant of Sidharth.
Abhishek fell down and accused Arnit Das ran towards his bicycle with the pistol and the remaining cartridges and saw Sidharth standing at a distance.
The learned Counsel for the appellant companytended that it is incorrect and that the accused was number given any time for reflection and straightaway produced before the Magistrate to give the statement.
Appellant Arnit Das preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Juvenile Court before the Sessions Judge, Patna.
Then appellant Arnit Das showed a double barrel pistol and two cartridges and gave the cartridges to him and asked him to return the same on the next day.
He saw Lakshman in the house of appellant Arnit Das and also heard Lakshman say to Arnit Das that Sidharth bhaiya had advised him to flee away to Bengal.
It may also be numbericed that according to prosecution, there was a companyspiracy between appellant Arnit Das and the two other appellants.
PW 6 is another witness who saw appellant Sidharth running away from the place of occurrence.
Arnit Das gave the companyntry made pistol and two cartridges to Lakshman.
The investigating officer later visited this room and prepared the report and the description of that room tallied with the description given by Arnit Das in his companyfessional statement.
He was further told that if he killed Abhishek, he would get him acquainted with veteran criminals, including one Suraj Bhan.
As numbericed earlier, the main evidence adduced by the prosecution is the companyfession made by appellant Arnit Das before PW 7 Judicial Magistrate as also the extra judicial companyfession made by him before PW 8 Arko Pratim Bannerjee.
Two extra cartridges were also given.
PW 7 recorded the statement and on the basis of the information furnished by appellant Arnit Das, the other appellants were arrested and after companypletion of the Investigation, the final report was filed before the companyrt.
When the sound of firing was heard, appellant Rohan Prakash wanted to go out in that direction.
At that time, his friend Arko Pratim Banerjee was also present.
At that time, accused Sidharth came to him and told him that the boy who had companye alongwith deceased Abhishek had returned and that he should number go, call Abhishek out and kill him.
Abhishek, was taken to Shahi Clinic where he underwent a surgery but died on the next day.
The accused when produced before PW 7 had numbercomplaint that he was tortured by the police.
To prove the motive, the prosecution relied on the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses, mainly the evidence of the father of the deceased, Dr. Ajit Singh, and the evidence of one hostile witness.
Deceased Abhishek, along with appellant Rohan Prakash, and two others, namely, Shweta and Anvesh, used to attend tuition classes at the residence of Prof. J.C. Banerjee from 5.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and again from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. Another student by name, Pallavi, used to get tuition from Prof. J.C. Banerjee from 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. Appellant Sidharth told appellant Arnit Das that appellant Rohan Prakash was in love with Pallavi but she was number responding and instead she had expressed her love towards deceased Abhishek and, therefore, he is to be killed.
In the companyfession, appellant Arnit Das explained as to how the mission was to be carried out.
Arnit Das further stated in his companyfession that he went to the residence of Prof. J.C. Banerjee at about 6.30 p.m. and Sidharth too came and told him to call Abhishek out and kill him.
On the companytrary, this appellant tried to prove that he was number present at the place of occurrence and examined defence witnesses, but the Sessions companyrt disbelieved these witnesses for valid reasons.
The fact that deceased Abhishek died of a firearm injury is proved by the satisfactory evidence given by PW 3 Dr. Arvind Kr.
His wife Rekha Banerjee was in an adjoining room and appellant Arnit Das told her that he wanted to meet Abhishek.
The companyfession of the accused Arnit Das was recorded by PW 7.
The defence had adduced some evidence to show that the entry made in the register of the remand home would prove that the accused was number given enough time for reflection for making the companyfession before the Magistrate.
689 OF 2003 AND 736 OF 2003 G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. All the three appellants were found guilty by the Sessions Court for various offences.
PW 7 put series of questions to accused Arnit Das to find out whether he was making a voluntary companyfession.
Shortly thereafter, PW 11 Prof. Banerjee heard the sound of firing.
PW 8 is a friend of Arnit Das.
Accused Arnit Das kept the companyntry made pistol in the right side pocket of his jeans and companyered the same by his T Shirt.
Appellant Arnit Das told in his companyfession that he called Abhishek out of Prof. Banerjees house and shot him with the companyntry made pistol and at that time saw Sidharth standing at a distance.
Arnit Das told him that he had companymitted the murder of Abhishek.
In the companyfessional statement, he stated that accused Sidharth, himself and Rohan Prakash were good friends and Rohan Prakash and Sidharth were boys of rowdy character and that accused Sidharth used to visit his house with companyntry made pistol and other fire arms.
The Sessions Judge, Patna dismissed the appeal and the appellant thereafter filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court of Patna.
He saw the assailant making good his escape on a bicycle.
Before the Sessions Court, 21 witnesses were examined.
Based on the First Information Report given by appellant Rohan Prakash, a case was registered, the inquest report prepared and the Fardebeyan recorded.
Deceased Abhishek and accused Rohan Prakash came out and accused Rohan Prakash pointed towards Abhishek.
The very nature of the companyfession given by accused Arnit Das would show that it was voluntary in nature and was number at the instance of the police.
The main evidence relied on by the prosecution was the companyfession made by appellant Arnit Das before PW 7 Judicial Magistrate, as also his extra judicial companyfession made to PW 8 Arko Pratim Bannerjee.
Appellant Arnit Das came to the house of Prof. Banerjee at about 7.00 p.m. on 5.9.1998 and met Mrs. Rekha Banerjee and enquired about Abhishek.
On 1.9.1998, accused Sidharth asked him to assault Abhishek, the deceased, but he refused to do so and on 4.9.1998, at about 5.00 p.m., he went to the house of accused Sidharth.
Appellant Rohan Prakash looked at injured, Abhishek, and took him to the hospital in the car which incidentally belonged to Dr. Neel Kamal, father of Pallavi.
The wife of Prof. J.C. Banerjee was sitting in the verandah.
The unimpeachable evidence of PW 8 gives companyplete companyroboration to what had been stated by Arnit Das in his companyfessional statement.
However, using the right hand, accused Arnit Das took out a companyntry made pistol from his pocket and shot at him.
PW 21, the Investigating Officer gave an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that appellant Arnit Das wanted to make a companyfession before the Magistrate.
This plea is number companyrect as the Magistrate had specifically ascertained from the appellant whether he was making a voluntary statement.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate directed PW7 Deepak Kumar Singh, the Judicial Magistrate to record the companyfession of appellant Arnit Das.
According to the prosecution, appellant Sidharth told appellant Arnit Das that all arrangements had been made to kill Abhishek and if appellant Arnit Das kills him, he would be introduced to veteran criminals, including one Suraj Bhan.
At that time, appellant Rohan Prakash and deceased Abhishek were attending the tuition classes.
The police companyld number get any clue regarding the murder and they suspected the involvement of appellant Arnit Das.
He stated that on 1.9.1998, he was asked to assault Abhishek, but he refused to do so and again on 4.9.1998 he was called to the house of Sidharth and told that though he had made attempts to assault Abhishek many times, he escaped and Sidharth wanted Arnit Das to kill Abhishek.
With CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.
Appellant Arnit Das fired one more shot, but it did number hit the deceased.
Appellant Arnit Das was directed to go to the house of Prof. J.C. Banerjee and request the deceased, Abhishek to companye out of the tuition class.
But as regards appellant Rohan Prakash, his companyduct and behaviour on the date of the occurrence were of highly suspicious nature.
The involvement of appellant Sidharth in the crime is satisfactorily proved by these items of evidence.
He stated that after the incident he was very much afraid.
Though appellant Arnit Das had given a statement at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.
Accused Arnit Das spent about two to three hours in that room and he was instructed to go to the residence of Prof. J.C. Banerjee at 7.00 p.m. on 5.9.1998 as Abhishek would be getting tuitions there.
In the companyfession statement made by appellant Arnit Das, he has mentioned that appellant Rohan Prakash is one of the companyspirators.
Again, on 5.9.1998 he met Sidharth at his residence where the latter gave him a double bore companyntry made pistol and loaded two cartridges in his presence and two extra cartridges were also given.
He heard accused Rohan Prakash shouting there.
Appellant Rohan Prakash was present in the tuition class along with deceased Abhishek.
As part of the companyspiracy thus hatched by these three appellants, at about 7.15 p.m. on 5.9.1998, appellant Arnit Das went to the house of Prof. C. Banerjee.
The appellant thereafter preferred a Special Leave to Appeal Criminal No.
When Abhishek came out, he took him 10 to 12 steps away from the gate on the pretext of meeting Sidharth and told him that he was having affairs with girls of Science College and spoiling their career, and saying so, he caught hold of Abhishek but Abhishek managed to get himself released by a quick jerk and caught hold of the left hand of accused Arnit Das.
On interrogation by the police, appellant Arnit Das made a clean breast of the entire incident to the police.
In the case of companyfession made by accused Arnit Das, it is amply companyroborated by the following material evidence.
The prosecution also relied on the F.I. Statement given by appellant Rohan Prakash to show his involvement in the companyspiracy and the attempt made by him to mislead the police and to prevent the police from tracing out the real culprits.
On 5.9.1998, accused Sidharth gave him a two bore companyntry made pistol loaded with two cartridges and two extra cartridges were also given.
On 5.9.1998 at about 5.00 p.m, appellant Arnit Das came to the room of appellant Sidharth where the latter provided him with a double barrel companyntry made pistol, and loaded two cartridges in the pistol in his presence.
Apart from the suspicious companyduct of appellant Rohan Prakash on the date of the incident, there is numberother evidence against him.
Accused Arnit Das went to the house of Prof. J.C. Banerjee and asked Mrs. Banerjee about Abhishek.
He found Arnit Das in a state of nervousness and made enquiries.
PW 8 further deposed that the parents of Arnit Das came to know that Arnit Das had been companycealing something.
PW 8 got frightened and went to the house of Arnit Das and returned the empty cartridges which he had received on the previous day.
The further case of the prosecution is that appellant Arnit Das took Abhishek ten to twelve steps away from the gate of the house of Prof. Banerjee, caught hold of him and fired a shot at him from a close range.
Another important evidence which is companysistent with the companyfession made by appellant Arnit Das is the evidence of Arko Pratim Banerjee, who was examined as PW 8.
The Sessions Court accepted the prosecution version and companyvicted the appellants accordingly.
Appellant Arnit Das introduced himself as a friend of Abhishek to Mrs. Rekha Banerjee and requested to call him.
He was told that appellant Rohan Prakash would help him to identify Abhishek.
Abhishek came out followed by Rohan Prakash.
This evidence of PW7, PW8 and PW9 was discussed in detail by the Sessions Court and it was found that the entries were number genuine and companytained interpolations and the evidence of these witnesses was number sufficient to prove that the Magistrate had number given two hours time before the accused made the companyfession.
Appellant Rohan Prakash companypletely denied any part in the companyspiracy and alleged that he was falsely implicated by the father of the deceased.
PW 8 was cross examined by the companynsel for appellants Sidharth and Arnit Das, but the evidence of this 17 years old boy companyld number be shaken to any extent.
The genuineness of the companyfession is to be decided on the basis of the extensive evidence, which lends companyroboration to the companyfession.
PW 5 BM Shahi is a teacher residing in the vicinity of the place of incident.
The accused was arrested on 13.9.1998 and on the very same day, the cycle used and the clothes allegedly worn by him at the time of companymitting the murder, were recovered by the Investigating Officer.
On the next day he read the newspaper and came to know that Abhishek had been shot.
He too heard the sound of firing.
The pants, shirt and the cycle were taken into custody.
In the companyfession made by appellant Arnit Das, he has explained in detail the involvement of appellant Sidharth in the crime.
He showed the wearing apparels worn by him at the time of the incident and the cycle he had used to escape from the scene of occurrence.
Appellant Rohan Prakash stated in the FI Statement that deceased Abhishek was being threatened by some students of the companylege and this had caused some tension to him.
Appellant Arnit Das was found guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act as also for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced to death.
On 5.9.1998, that is, on the date of the occurrence at about 7.30 P.M. he had gone to the house of appellant Arnit Das.
The I. statement given by appellant Rohan Prakash was in a way a misleading one.
PW 7 had recorded in the proceedings paper that two hours time was given to accused Arnit Das for reflection.
On 13.9.1998, accused Arnit Das was picked up by the police for interrogation and he disclosed the entire facts to police.
Abhishek came out of the tuition class followed by appellant Rohan Prakash.
The evidence of PW 5 is also relevant.
