Back
2012 Supreme(Pat) 273
PATNA HIGH COURT
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, JJ.
Shambhu Yadav - Appellant
Sarju Yadav @ Sarjug Yadav & Anr. - Appellant
Amir Chand Mahto & Ors. - Appellants
Shivdayal Yadav & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 580 of 2002 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 561, 593 and 603 of 2002.
Decided On : February 17, 2012
Shivendra Prasad, Arun Kumar Pandey –I, Binod Kumar, R. Ranjan. Rajesh Singh, A.K. Pandey, Hemant Pd. Singh, Kinkar Kumar, Ram Naresh Singh and Sanjay Kumar @ Manu, for the appellants.
Ashwani Kumar Sinha, for the respondents.
Binod Kumar and Shivendra Prasad, for the appellants.
Ashwani Kumar Sinha, for the respondents.
Sheo Murti Singh. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey and Manoranjan Kumar, for the appellants.
Ashwani Kumar Sinha, for the respondents.
Lakshmi Kant Sharma and Shivendra Prasad, for the appellants.
Ashwani Kumar Sinha, for the respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of reliable evidence, and the need for consistency in witness testimonies.
Headnote:
Conviction - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 395, Section 302, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 323, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149 - The judgment discusses the convictions of the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, including dacoity, murder, voluntarily causing hurt, and being members of an unlawful assembly. The court's decision is influenced by the lack of evidence, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and doubts about the prosecution's narrative.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for various offences including dacoity and murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellants committed dacoity, looted houses, and killed a person in retaliation for a previous murder. However, the evidence presented raised doubts about the motive and manner of occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies, lack of evidence to support the prosecution's narrative, and doubts about the motive and manner of occurrence. As a result, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them from all charges.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, the alleged motive for the crimes, the manner of occurrence, and the lack of evidence to support the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the inconsistencies in witness testimonies, doubts about the alleged motive, lack of evidence to support the prosecution's narrative, and the overall failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: All the appellants were acquitted from all charges, and their bail bonds were discharged. The judgment and order of the trial Court were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. –
These four appeals arise out of Sessions Trial No. 76 of 1996 in which trial the ten appellants of the respective appeals have been convicted for various offences and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment dated 05th August, 2002 and sentence dated 8.8.2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge I, Bhojpur at Ara.
2. In Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2002, the appellants are Sarju Yadav @ Saryug Yadavand Baban Yadav. In Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2002, the appellants are Amir Chand Mahto, Ram Singasan Yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav. In Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2002 the appellants are Shiv Dayal Yadav, Chandeshwar Yadav, Parmanand Yadav and Chandrika Yadav. In Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 2002, the sole appellant is Shambhu Yadav. It may be noticed that Ram Chandra Yadav who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2002 died during pendency of the appeal and on 08.03.2010 order was passed that appeal against him stands abated. It may also be noticed that one Bhuneshwar Mahto was also charge-sheeted and charges were framed against him but in course of trial on 8.1.1999, he died and, as such, has not been tried and sentenced, his trial having abated.
3. It would be convenient to note the charges for which these appellants were tried. All the ten appellants were charged first under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing dacoity in the house of Harendra Singh. Prabhu Nath Singh, Sarjug Singh and Raj Kishore Singh. Out of them, Shiv Dayal Yadav and Sarjug Yadav were separately charged under Section 323, IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to Shivdas Singh. Seven appellants that is Baban Yadav, Chandeshwar Yadav, Parmanand Yadav. Chandrika Yadav, Ram Singasan Yadav, Ram Chandra Yadavand Amir Chand Yadav were charged under Section 147, IPC for being members of unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder of Dharmendra Singh in course of rioting in course of which Dharmendra Singh was killed. Nine appellants, with the exception of Shambhu Yadav, were charged under Sections 302/149 of IPC for having unlawfully assembled in furtherance of common object and forming unlawful assembly to commit the murder of Dharmendra Singh. Shambhu Yadav was separately charged for causing the death of Dharmendra Singh by shooting him under Section 302, IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Appellants Sarjug Yadav, Shambhu Yadav and Shiv Dayal Yadav were then separately charged under Section 148 of IPC for being members of unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon which was likely to cause death in furtherance of a common object.
4. The trial Court, on basis of evidence as led before it, acquitted Shiv Dayal and Sarjug Yadav of charge under Section 323 of IPC. All the appellants were convicted under Section 395 of IPC. Shambhu Yadav was held guilty for offence under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and. accordingly the rest of them were held guilty of offence under Sections 302/149 of IPC, Appellants Sarjug Yadav. Shambhu Yadav and Shiv Dayal Yadav were convicted under Section 148 of IPC whereas appellants Baban Yadav. Chandeshwar Yadav, Parmanand Yadav, Char.drika Yadav, Ram Singasan Yadav, Ramchandra Yadav and Amir Chand Mahto were held guilty under Section 147 of IPC as well. When it came to sentencing Shambhu Yadav, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 302 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants, who had been convicted under Sections 302/149 of IPC, were sentenced to life imprisonment. All persons having been found guilty of offence under Section 395 of IPC were further sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and pay a: fine of Rs. 5.000/- each, No separate sentence was awarded for offence under Sections 148 and 147 of IPC. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
5. The prosecution case starts with the fard beyan (Exhibit 2) of one Harendra Pratap Singh (PW 6) recorded by G N Manda
