IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Supreme Court need not delve into each and every individual’s testimonies and instead only examine whether path adopted by Courts below is compromised by any manifest error.
(2) Convictions on the basis of testimony of a singular eyewitness is also permissible – Evidence on record is to be measured for quality, not on the basis of quantity.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL J.

1. The appellant-convicts before us are the father and son, namely Adalat Yadav and Anirudh Yadav. Criminal Appeal No. 1788 of 2019 has been filed by Adalat Yadav, and Criminal Appeal No. 1789 of 2019 has been filed by Anirudh Yadav. Both challenging the common judgment dated 4th February 2017 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB)) No. 110 of 2012 and 79 of 2012 respectively, whereby the Division Bench, has confirmed finding of conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Fast Track Court-IV Begusarai¹ [‘Trial Court’] in terms of judgment dated 22.11.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 251 of 2019 sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life under Section 302 and 149 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860² [‘IPC’] and also a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. The above convicts were further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years under Sections 307, 149 of the I.P.C. read with Section 120B of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Apart from this, they were also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently.

2. The facts giving rise to these appeals, as set out by the Courts below, are as follows.

(i) On 4th December, 2008 while Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav (PW-5/complainant) was homebound from the Begusarai Court along with his brother Ram Sharan Yadav (deceased), certain persons including two appellants/convicts surrounded them upon reaching the grocery store run by one Suresh Mahto. A-1 hurled abuses at them and stated that despite repeated directions/clear warnings given to them by Girdhari Yadav (who was also an accused before the High Court), against giving depositions in the murder case on one Mahesh Paswan, the deceased had refused to heed. He then fired his pistol, hitting the deceased on his head, making him fall to his death, instantly. A-2 had fired upon the deceased and, thereafter, other members of the group also opened fired on the complainant as also one Ganesh and Baidyanath Yadav, who were walking alongside the deceased and the complainant. The bullet fired by one Shivji Yadav, hit the complainant on his leg. A written complaint was lodged about the incident on the same day, resulting in registration of FIR Number 222/08 at Police Station Balia.

(ii) Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheets were filed bearing No. 38/09 dated 04th March 2009 and No. 310/09 dated 16th March 2009, respectively. The Trial Court convicted a total of 4 persons including the appellant-convicts while acquitting one Ram Balak Yadav. A perusal of the Trial Court judgment reveals that such a finding has been arrived at upon a cumulative assessment of the testimonies of all the witnesses. It has been observed that PW-1 to PW-4 consistently supported the prosecution’s case, especially to the effect that enmity inter se the parties is germane on the earlier occurrence of violence on 28th November 2003, wherein the appellant-convicts were involved in an act of indiscriminate firing at the house of the deceased and also deployment of a bomb there. This had resulted in the death of the daughter of the deceased. They had also stated that while the background of the dispute between the parties was as alluded to above, the primary reason therefor was that the deceased was a witness against Girdhari Yadav. The learned Trial Judge, after taking note of the alleged contradictions between the testimonies of the witnesses as pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties but overall, termed them to be minor in nature, not affecting the sanctity of the statements.

(iii) The High Court, in the impugned judgment while agreeing with the overall conclusion returned by the Trial Court, differed in its reasoning. According t