Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 292
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Samarendra Pratap Singh, Aditya Kumar Trivedi, JJ.
Ganauri Yadav S/o Ram Dhayan Yadav & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 182 & 361 of 2014
Decided On : 28-01-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, Mr. S.C. Mishra
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and consistent evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Headnote:
IPC - Kidnapping and Murder - Section 364/34, Section 302/34, Section 201 - [Section 364/34, Section 302/34, Section 201]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the kidnapping and murder of an individual, allegedly due to a family dispute over an elopement. The appellants were found guilty and sentenced by the trial court, but the judgment was challenged in the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies and lack of reliable evidence from the witnesses, leading to doubts about the guilt of the appellants. The judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellants were directed to be released.
Issues: The key issue was the reliability of the witnesses and the evidence presented, especially regarding the kidnapping and murder of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of credible and consistent evidence from the witnesses, leading to doubts about the guilt of the appellants.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellants were directed to be released.
Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.182 of 2014 wherein Ganauri Yadav is the appellant and Cr. Appeal (DB) No.361 of 2014 wherein Dev Sharan Yadav @ Dev Charan Yadav is the appellant commonly, originate against the judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2014 and order of sentence dated 05.02.2014 passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial No.433 of 2004/379 of 2013 on account thereof, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Both the appellants have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 364/34 IPC, 302/34 IPC, 201 IPC and have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life as well as fine of Rs.20,000/- under both heads separately that means to say under Section 364/34 of the IPC of 302/34 IPC, independently and R.I. for three years under Section 201 of the IPC as also fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for six months additionally. Furthermore, the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. PW.7, Motilal Yadav filed written report on 23.05.2013 alleging inter alia that on 22.05.2013 at about 07:00 PM while, his brother Brajesh Kumar had gone to meet natures call, was apprehended by his co-villager Gajendra Yadav, Satan Yadav, Nand Yadav, Arun Kumar, Ganauri Yadav, Vijay Yadav, Sanjay Kumar, Deocharan Yadav, Rohan Yadav, Bablu Kumar, Yogendra Yadav, Kamlesh Yadav, Ramswarath Yadav, Baldo Yadav, Brijmohan Yadav and took him away towards eastern Badhar. They have made hectic search but could not find him. The motive for occurrence has been assigned as daughter of Nanhak Yadav had eloped with Raj Kumar @ Tuntun, son of Budhan Yadav, his pattidar and for that Nanhak Yadav was threatening to return the girl or they will have to face ultimate result.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Shakurabad P.S. Case No.44/2003 was registered under Section 363, 120(B), 34 of the IPC, which during course of investigation was converted under Section 364, 302,201/34 of the IPC, where under charge sheet was also submitted and accordingly, appellants have faced trial which ultimately resulted adverse to their interest which has been challenged under present appeal.
4. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial as well as false implication. However, neither any DW nor any kind of documents has been adduced during course of trial.
5. While assailing the finding recorded by the learned trial court, it has been submitted that after perusal of the judgment impugned, it is apparent that learned trial court had acted in mechanical way by non-appreciating the factual as well as legal aspect. To substantiate the same, it has been submitted that none of the independent witness has been examined in this case whose presence, as per evidence of the witnesses was there. Apart from this, it has been submitted that whoever been examined are own family members and whose inconsistent version clearly speak that none of them happens to be an eye witness to occurrence. That being so, the status of the witnesses happens to be un-credit-worthy, unreliable whereupon their evidences ought to have been rejected by the learned trial court.
6. It has further been submitted that there happens to be no evidence with regard to murder of the deceased nor the flesh, bone particles allegedly recovered, though not found by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation were connected to be that of alleged victim Brajesh Kumar and on account thereof, conviction and sentence relating to Section 302/34 IPC as well as Section 201 of the IPC are not at all substantiated. So far Section 364/34 IPC is concerned, from the nature of the evidence as indicated above, being unreliable, worthless, incredible that part is also not found proved. Consequent thereupon, the judgment of conviction and sentence impugned attracts interference by way of ge
