SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Pat) 1212

PATNA HIGH COURT
Shiva Kirti Singh and Dharnidhar Jha JJ.
Reference Made By 1st.Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur Vide Letter No.63 Dated 13.5.2003 And Appeal Against The Judgment And Order Dated 5th May, 2003 Passed In Sessions Trial No.425/ 2002, Trial No.104/02. state Of Bihar
Versus
Mahendra Yadav "icondemned Prisoner/ The State Of Bihar
Death Reference No. 6 of 2003 ;
Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2003 ; 226 of 2003 ; 233 of 2003 ; 253 of 2003 ;
Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 2006 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 8, 2006

The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and doubts about the credibility of witnesses, place and manner of occurrence, and inconsistencies in the case can lead to acquittal.

Headnote:

Death Reference - Criminal Law - Sec. 302/149 I.P.C., Sec.148 I.P.C., Sec.27 of the Arms Act - The court discussed the prosecution's case, evidence, and the defense's arguments. It highlighted the lack of independent witnesses, doubts about the place and manner of occurrence, and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused.

Fact of the Case:

The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with firearms, fired at the deceased and his companions, resulting in the death of the deceased. The defense denied the occurrence and claimed false implication due to old enmity.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted doubts about the place and manner of occurrence, lack of independent witnesses, and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, doubts about the place and manner of occurrence, and the delay in reporting the incident to the police.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the lack of independent witnesses, doubts about the place and manner of occurrence, and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case as reasons for acquitting the accused.

Final Decision: The court acquitted all the accused, including the one awarded death sentence, as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.

1. The Death Reference is in respect of accused Mahendra Prasad Yadav who has also preferred Cr. Appeal No. 253 of 2003. The other four Criminal Appeals have been preferred by four co-accused who have also been, tried and convicted together by the same judgment and order dated 5th May, 2003 passed by 1st. Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Case No. 425 of 2002. Trial No. 104/2002 whereby all the five accused/ appellants have been convicted under sections 302/ 149 I.P.C., Sec.148 I.P.C. and Sec.27 of the Arms Act. No separate sentence has been passed under sec. 148 I.P.C. but there is a direction to treat the period spent under jail custody by the accused persons as period of sentence. Under Sec.27 of the Arms Act all accused have been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. Under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. accused Mahendra Yadav has been awarded death sentence whereas other four accused/appellants have been awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for life. The appellants have challenged the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence through these appeals which have been heard together and shall be governed by this common judgment.

2. The gist of the prosecution case as mentioned in the Fardbeyan (Exhibit:4) of the informant, Hemant Kumar Yadav (P.W. 11) is that he had gone to Mukheria Bahiar on 14.10.2000 at about 4 P.M. along with his co-villagers Anesh Yadav (Deceased), Sanjay Yadav (P.W. 9), Kamlesh Yadav (P.W. 7), Raghuvir Kumar (P.W. 3) and Rajeev Kumar (P.W. 1) for irrigating field. After irrigating the field at Mukheria Bahiar when they were returning home at about 9 P.M. and had crossed Railway line and were crossing a ditch through an electric pole kept over the ditch one by one, Anesh Yadav was crossing in front of all, they saw the five accused/appellants all armed with Gun, Rifle and Carbine sitting at a distance of about 25 yards towards east. In the moon light he saw Binod Yadav with single barrel gun, Ranjan Yadav with rifle, Ganesh Yadav with rifle, Mahendra Yadav with Carbine and Pappu Yadav with a rifle in their hands. On seeing them Ganesh Yadav ordered to kill t and on this accused Ranjan Yadav, Binod Yadav and Mahendra Yadav started firing indiscriminately with their gun, rifle and carbine. The shots hit at right hand and both thighs of Anesh Yadav who sustained injuries and fell down at that very place. When firing started the informant and his other companions hid themselves behind the ditch. Villagers on hearing the sound of firing raised hue and cry and then the accused persons fled away towards east. A large number of villagers came, witnessed the occurrence and took injured Anesh Yadav to Mayagani (Bhagalpur) hospital for treatment. As soon as they entered the hospital Anesh died at about 11.00 P.M. The cause of occurrence was alleged to be old enmity and dispute with all the accused persons.

3. The aforesaid Fardbeyan of P.W. 11 was recorded by a Sub-Inspector of Police, Md. Shamim (P.W. 10), OfficerIncharge of Lodipur Police Station on 15.10.2000 at 10 A.M. at Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, Bhagalpur. After preparing the inquest, getting the post-mortem conducted and completing the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellants leading to their trial in which they pleaded not guilty to the charges under sections 148, 302/149 of the I.P.C. and Sec.27 of the Arms Act.

4. From the cross-examination and statement of the accused under sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. the defence of the accused persons appears to be total denial of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution and their false implication due to old enmity and series of past cases between rival groups.

5. The prosecution in order to prove the charges examined altogether 11 witnesses out of whom the four alleged companions of the informant and the informant have already been noted earlier as P.Ws. 1, 3, 7, 9 and 11. P.W. 2 Lalan Yadav, a co-villager of



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top