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

2014 Supreme(Pat) 554

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
DHARNIDHAR JHA & ANJANA PRAKASH, JJ.
Raj Ballam Yadav & Ors.
Chandeshwar Yadav & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent(in both cases)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.256 of 1990 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 304 of 1990
Decided on: 19-06-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellants :Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable witness testimony, admissible evidence, and the benefit of doubt in criminal cases.

Headnote:

Arms Act - Criminal Law - Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act - [Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act] - The court discussed the evidence and findings related to the charges under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It highlighted the use of medical evidence without examining the doctor, the suspicious nature of the manner of occurrence, and the inadmissible opinion of a witness, leading to the acquittal of the appellants based on the benefit of doubt.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased was allegedly shot and killed in a field, leading to the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The defense claimed false implication and questioned the prosecution's case.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the evidence of witnesses to be unreliable, highlighted discrepancies in their statements, and criticized the use of medical evidence without examining the doctor. It extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquitted them.

Issues: Reliability of witness testimony, use of medical evidence, and the benefit of doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unreliability of witness testimony, discrepancies in the prosecution's case, and the inadmissible use of medical evidence.

Final Decision: The judgment and order of conviction were set aside, and all the appellants were acquitted and discharged from their respective bail bonds.

JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA)

1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 23rd June, 1990, passed by 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Sessions Trial No.608 of 1985/25 of 1987 by which seven appellants of the two appeals were convicted of offence under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant, Chandeshwar Yadav, (Cr. Appeal No.304 of 1990) had distinctly been charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act and after being convicted for that offence he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years which sentence was to run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code.

2. PW 6, Devnarayan Singh, father of deceased Mathura Prasad Singh gave his fard-e-beyan in Patna Medical College & Hospital before the Pirbahore Police stating that he and his son deceased Mathura Prasad Singh were harvesting Masoor crop in their field. All on a sudden, nine accused persons named in the FIR came shouting Maro-Maro and surrounded the deceased Mathura Prasad Singh. Appellant Chandeshwar Yadav fired a shot from his pistol which hit the deceased and he fell down whereafter Appellant Yogendra Yadav threw a bomb upon him which detonated and caused injuries to the deceased. Persons, who were working around the field, rushed to the scene of occurrence whereupon the accused persons ran away from there.

3. The deceased was picked up and was rushed to Patna Medical College & Hospital where he was declared brought dead.

4. After recording the fard-e-beyan (Ext.5), Pirbahore Police held inquest upon the dead body of Mathura Prasad Singh as may appear from the evidence of PW 11, Giridhar Narayan Singh, who was posted in that Police Station and prepared the Inquest Report (Ext.6). He dispatched the dead body to the Post Mortem Room of Patna Medical College & Hospital for facilitating autopsy on the dead body. Dr. R. B. Choudhary, who was the Professor of Forensic Medicine in Patna Medical College and Hospital, held postmortem examination and prepared the report (Ext.9). The evidence has come from PW 12, Dr. R. P. Srivastava, Assistant Professor in Forensic Medicine, Patna Medical College & Hospital, that Dr. Choudhary demised. As such, he could not come to depose in Court. The learned Trial Judge considered the document Post Mortem Examination Report (Ext.9) to record certain findings which is one of the points which has fallen for our consideration and we propose to record our finding a bit later.

5. It appears from the evidence of PW 10, S. I. Madan Prasad, that initially a rumor was afloat that a fight had ensued between Yadav and Kurmi communities and the deceased Mathura Prasad Singh had fallen a bullet. That information was reduced into writing vide Station Diary Entry No.128 dated 10.03.1982. Subsequently, on receipt of the fard-e-beyan (Ext.5), the Officer-in-Charge of Phulwari sharif Police Station drew up the FIR of the case (Ext.7) and handed over the investigation to PW 10, who came to the place of occurrence and inspected the field where the incident had occurred and found that it was the field of one Bal Binod Singh where some blood stains were found on earth which was seized by preparing seizure memo. He noted down the description of the place of occurrence in the case diary and recorded the statement of the witnesses, but was relieved of the investigation. How the investigation proceeded from that stage is not known to us on account of non-examination of other Investigating Officer. At any rate, what transpires from the record is that seven appellants before us were put on trial and convicted under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code with a distinct charge separately framed against Chandeshwar Yadav under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

6. The defence of appellants was of false implication and further that deceased Mathura Prasad Singh had been killed by someone else at a different point in tim










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