Important point
Conviction for murder on sole testimony of brother of deceased an eye witness which suffered no infirmity and was corroborated by other evidence would liable to be sustained.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/34 and 27 of Arms Act—Appellants, goondas of locality who used to demand “rangdari tax”, killed deceased by fire arms shots, as deceased used to pay the tax—Deceased was travelling in a tractor with his brother PW12 which was being driven by PW3 at the time of incident—Conviction by Courts below—Appeal—PW12 fully supported the prosecution case—PW3 did not name appellants though deposed incident as per prosecution case and corroborated version of PW12—PW5 had reached placed on hearing gun shots but after the incident and PW12 narrated him incident and named appellants who had killed deceased—Testimony of PW5 could be used for corroboration u/s 157 Evidence Act—Participation of appellants in the crime stood established beyond doubt—Conviction called for no interference.
       Held : PW.12, Sidheshwar Prasad is the brother of the deceased Ram Parvesh Yadav. He has deposed that the deceased was carrying on timber business and had also a saw mill. The appellants were bullies or goondas of the locality and they used to demand “rangdari tax” (Goondas Tax) from his brother, but he refused to pay the same and due to this reason, the appellants wanted to teach him a lesson. This shows the motive for commission of crime and also explains the reason why as many as 7 witnesses turned hostile and even PW.3, Karu Beldar who was driving the tractor, did not mention the names of the appellants in his deposition in Court, though they were named and were assigned the specific role of causing gunshot injuries in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW.3 Karu Beldar has stated that the deceased Ram Parvesh Yadav and Sidheshwar Prasad had gone to village Dabaul to bring timber and he was driving the tractor. He has further deposed that while returning at about 3.00-4.00 p.m., when they reached near village Shekhopur, two-three people suddenly appeared and started firing from their weapons. He jumped from the tractor and ran away. He also saw that Ram Parvesh Yadav had run towards eastern side, where he received gunshot injuries and fell down dead. Except for mentioning the names of the three appellants, he has completely corroborated the prosecution version of the incident. He corroborates the fact that PW.12 Sidheshwar Prasad had also gone with the deceased Ram Parvesh Yadav to village Dabaul for bringing timber on a tractor of which he was the driver. He corroborates the fact that the incident took place at about 3.00-4.00 p.m. near village Shekhopur when two-three persons suddenly appeared and started firing upon the tractor. He also corroborates the fact that he saw Ram Parvesh Yadav being hit gunshots and falling down dead towards eastern side of the tractor. He further corroborates the presence of Sidheshwar Prasad at the time when the assailants resorted to firing upon Ram Parvesh Yadav. (Para 6)
       No infirmity of any kind has been pointed out in the testimony of PW.12 Sidheshwar Prasad, who is the brother of the deceased. His going along with his brother for the purpose of bringing timber is most natural. There is substantial corroboration to his testimony by the statements of PW3 Karu Beldar and PW.5 Arjun Prasad. His version of the incident is consistent with medical evidence on record. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has established the participation of the appellants in the crime in question beyond any reasonable doubt. We do not find any error or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court and also by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Para 10)

Judgment

G.P. Mathur, J.—1. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.1.2004 of Patna High Court, by which the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act and the sentence of imprisonment for life under the first count and three years R.I. under the second count imposed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda, in Sessions Trial No. 612 of 1998 were affirmed.

2. The case of the prosecution may be stated in brief. The deceased Ram Parvesh Yadav was carrying on timber business and was running a saw mill at Hilsa. The appellants, Ramashray Yadav (A-1), Tanikan Yadav (A-2) and Rajdeo Yadav (A-3), were bullies or goondas of the locality and they used to demand “rangdari tax” (Goonda Tax) from the deceased, but he refused to pay the same. Due to this reason, the appellants were hostile to the deceased and wanted to teach him a lessor. On 10.4.1998, the deceased Ram Parvesh Yadav along with his brother PW.12 Sidheshwar Prasad and some others went on a tractor trolley to bring timber from village Dabaul. After loading the timber, they returned from there and reached west of village Shekhopur at about 3.30 p.m. Suddenly, the three appellants and two other unknown persons came out from the bushes and started firing with country-made pistol and rifle. The labourers, the driver of the tractor and Ram Parvesh Yadav jumped from the tractor and started running towards eastern side. The accused chased Ram Parvesh Yadav and after covering some distance reached near him and fired number of shots, which hit him and he fell down dead. Sidheshwar Prasad gave his fard bayan to S.I. Deo Nath Bhagat, of Police Station, Hilsa at about 5.00 p.m. The formal FIR of the incident was registered at the Police Station at 7.30 p.m. on the basis of which Crime Case No. 139 of 1998 was registered. S.I. Prabhu Nath Singh commenced investigation of the case and after recording statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and completing other formalities submitted charge sheet against the three appellants. The post-mortem examination conducted on the body of the deceased Ram Pravesh Yadav revealed that he had sustained large number of gunshot injuries.

3. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the appellants were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses, out of whom 7 witnesses turned hostile. PW.12 Sidheshwar Prasad, brother of the deceased who had accompanied him on the tractor to village Dabaul for bringing the timber, gave the complete version of the incident in his deposition in Court. PW.3 Karu Beldar was the driver of the tractor. He deposed that he had driven the tractor trolley on which Ram Parvesh Yadav and Sidheshwar Prasad had gone to village Dabaul for bringing timber. When they were returning to village Hilsa at about 3.00-4.00 p.m. and had reached near village Shekhopur, two-three people whom he could not recognize, came there and started firing upon the tractor. Ram Parvesh Yadav ran towards eastern side, but after receiving gunshot injuries he fell down and died on the spot. When confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein he had mentioned that the three appellants namely, Ramashray Yadav, Tanikan Yadav and Rajdeo Yadav were present amongst the assailants and had fired from country-made pistol and rifle upon the deceased, he denied to have given any such statement, though he admitted that the police had recorded his statement at the police station. He also denied to have stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused appellants used to demand “rangdari tax” (Goonda Tax) from the deceased and on account of non-payment thereof, they had committed his murder. PW.5 Arjun Prasad sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1451

Important pointConviction for murder on sole testimony of brother of deceased an eye witness which suffered no infirmity and was corroborated by other evidence would liable to be sustained.

Cases Referred (2)

Important point
Conviction for murder on sole testimony of brother of deceased an eye witness which suffered no infirmity and was corroborated by other evidence would liable to be sustained.