The Supreme Court Friday convicted former Lok Sabha MP from Bihar Prabhunath Singh in a 1995 double murder case, overturning the orders of the trial court and the Patna High Court acquitting him.
Holding him guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder for killing Daroga Rai and Rajendra Rai in March 1995 in Chhapra village of Bihar, a bench of Justices S K Kaul, AS Oka and Vikram Nath directed the state Home Secretary and DGP “to ensure that…Singh is taken into custody forthwith and produced before” it on September 1 when it will hear the matter on the quantum of sentence to be imposed.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Patna had by order dated October 24, 2008, acquitted Singh. This was upheld by the Patna High Court on December 2, 2021.
Reversing the decisions of the trial court and the HC, the SC said the investigation in the case was “tainted”, and slammed the way in which the trial court as well as the high court went about the case. “The trial court and the high court miserably failed to notice the sensitivity and intricacies of the case. Both the courts completely shut their eyes to the manner of the investigation, the prosecutor’s role and high-handedness of the accused as also the conduct of the presiding officer of the trial court, despite observations and findings having been recorded not only by the administrative judge but also by the division bench deciding habeas corpus petition,” the judgement said,
Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the bench, said the trial court and HC “continued with their classical rut of dealing with the evidence in a manner as if it was a normal trial. They failed to notice the conduct of the public prosecutor in not even examining the formal witnesses and also that the public prosecutor was acting to the advantage of the accused…”.
Singh had opened fire on the victims when they told him that they had voted for the Janata Dal. The former MP was then contesting as a candidate of the Bihar People’s Party.
Highlighting the extent of the mishandling of the case, the SC said that “at the relevant time…he had mustered full support of the administration and the investigating agency; he had influenced and won over almost all the witnesses of fact mentioned in the chargesheet (who were declared hostile), the relevant formal witnesses, including the investigating officer, were not produced in the trial by the prosecution…”