Chandeshwar Das @ Baba Ji @ Baba Jee vs The State Of Bihar

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The appellant challenged the judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2024 and order of sentence dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Samastipur, convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively, both sentences to run concurrently. The appeal arose out of Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 194 of 2020 wherein the deceased sustained 14 bullet injuries.

The appellant prayed for bail and suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contending that the informant (mother of the deceased) was not an eye-witness, that there were major contradictions and inconsistencies in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, and that CCTV footage showed the informant and her daughter-in-law arriving at the scene only after the accused had fled and that the appellant was not visible in the said footage. The State opposed the prayer, relying on the informant's detailed examination-in-chief, the post-mortem findings, and four other FIRs registered against the appellant.

The Court observed that at the stage of considering suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not permissible to re-appreciate the entire evidence in detail or to pick up lacunae in the prosecution case, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Janardan Ray vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (Cr. Appeal Nos. 1892-1893 of 2025) and Om Prakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr., (2023) 6 SCC 123.

Catchwords: murder · arms act · suspension of sentence · bail · eye-witness · CCTV footage · contradictions in evidence · Section 389 CrPC · re-appreciation of evidence · antecedents

Murder (Section 302 IPC / 103 BNS)