Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Pat) 1421

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA AND AMARESH KUMAR LAL, JJ.

The State of Bihar - Appellant
Versus
Bhim Yadav & Ors. - Respondents
with
Raj Ballam Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Govt. Appeal (DB) No. 45 of 1990 with Cr. A. (DB) No.197 of 1990
Decided on: 05-11-2012

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
In Cr. App (DB) No.45 of 1990
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, Mr. P.P.
For the Respondents: Mr. Alok Ranjan, Amicus Curiae
In Cr. App. (DB) No.197 of 1990
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Ranjan, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, Mr. P.P.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for conviction under criminal law, and the importance of separating truth and giving a definite conclusion based on the evidence presented.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act - [IPC Section 302, IPC Section 27, Arms Act] - The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, while dismissing the appeals filed by the State of Bihar and the appellant. The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while the acquitted persons were not linked to the offense.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for the murder of Deonandan Pd. Sinha. The State of Bihar challenged the acquittal of other accused persons. The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, while dismissing the appeals filed by the State of Bihar and the appellant. The acquitted persons were not linked to the offense.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court's judgment convicting the appellant was correct, and whether the acquitted accused should also have been convicted based on consistent evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had successfully proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while the acquitted persons were not linked to the offense. The court emphasized the importance of separating truth and giving a definite conclusion about the manner of occurrence.
Final Decision: The court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and dismissed the appeals. The appellant's bail bond was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA)

1. When the appeals were called out repeatedly then nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellant Raj Ballam Yadav @ Bijli Yadav. The appeal is of the year 1990. The appellant was properly noticed despite that he has not appeared, so this Court had no other way out than by appointing Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant.

Shri Alok Ranjan, Advocate is present in the Court and volunteers to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.

Considering his willingness, Shri Alok Ranjan is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant.

Let a copy of the brief of the appeal be handed over to newly appointed Amicus Curiae. The appeal is being passed over and it shall be taken up after lunch.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 197 (DB) of 1990 by Raj Ballam Yadav @ Bijli Yadav and Government Appeal No. 45 (DB) of 1990 on behalf of State of Bihar have arisen out of one common judgment passed on 25th of April, 1990 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Sessions Trial No. 276 of 1989, arising out of Bihar P.S. Case No. 519 of 1987 holding the appellant Raj Ballam Yadav @ Bijli Yadav guilty under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for life and three years respectively. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. The State of Bihar has challenged the acquittal of respondents Bhim Yadav, Sri Ballam Yadav, Chhotey Yadav, Anandi Yadav and Deo Nandan Yadav.

4. On 7th December, 1987 at 5.00 P.M., Deonandan Pd. Sinha (the deceased) carrying a packet of Urea fertilizer was going upon the rickshaw being plied by P.W. 7 Bijendra Paswan. Deonandan Pd. Sinha (the deceased) was a School Teacher. While they were towards their houses from Bihar Sharif then the informant P.W. 3 Krishna Chandra Prasad noted that some other persons were negotiating through the same way. The informant along with his nephew Nand Kishore Prasad P.W.6, Mahesh Prasad P.W. 2, Ashok Kumar P.W. 1 was also negotiating through the same route in near vicinity of the rickshaw being plied by P.W. 7. As soon as the rickshaw of P.W. 7 carrying Deonandan Pd. Sinha (the deceased) reached near a tree of Dumarao Road at 5.00 P.M., then Raj Ballam Yadav @ Bijli Yadav, Chhotey Yadav, Bhim Yadav, Sri Ballam Yadav and Deonandan Yadav variously armed intercepted the rickshaw which was carrying Deonandan Pd. Sinha (the deceased) and at the behest of Bhim Yadav, Deonandan Pd. Sinha was fired upon by Raj Ballam Yadav @ Bijli Yadav who received firearm injury and succumbed to that injury on the rickshaw itself. On cry Binod Kumar P.W. 4, Umesh Kumar P.W. 5 and others also came and witnessed the occurrence. The reason for the ghastly murder was that Surjyanandan Prasad, son of Bhim Prasad – a military man had greedy eyes upon the land of the informant for which he had applied for settlement before the Collector, Nalanda. The proceeding with regard to his application was terminated. The land was in the process of being encircled and for that bricks were stacked. The killing was with the aim of restraining construction of the boundary upon the land. The fardbeyan (Ext. 1) witnessed by Nand Kishore Prasad P.W. 6 and Ramchandra Pd. (not examined) resulted into formal FIR (Ext. 6) under Sections 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The occurrence of 5.00 P.M. was recorded just within an hour at 6.00 P.M. on 07.12.1987, it was sent to court on 08.12.1987. In course of investigation, the inquest report (Ext. 2) was prepared, seizure list (Ext. 3) was also made, post-mortem report (Ext. 7) was obtained. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was taken and the place of occurrence was investigated. The informant was not satisfied with the pace and manner of investigation so he protested it by filing protest petitions. Charge sheet against Raj Ballam Yadav @ Bijli Yadav was submitted ultimately cognizance was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis