Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAKESH KUMAR, ARVIND SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Vijay Yadav S/O Bhubneshwar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 396, 307 of 2012
Decided On : 18-04-2018
For the Appellants : Mr. K.P. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ranjan Kr. Jha, Adv., Mr. Pratik Mishra, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. G.C. Jha, Adv., Mr. Aashish Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Mishra (App)
For the Informant : Mr. Ram Sumiran Roy, Adv.
The judgment establishes the importance of consistent evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the application of the benefit of doubt principle.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC - Arms Act - Section 27 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 302/34, Arms Act Section 27 - The court found the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The judgment discusses the evidence presented, contradictions in the prosecution's case, and the involvement of each appellant in the occurrence. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of Vijay Yadav and Prashant Yadav, while setting aside the conviction and sentence of Ajay Yadav and Shashi Yadav.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over land encroachment, leading to a fatal shooting. The appellants were convicted for their involvement in the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found Vijay Yadav and Prashant Yadav guilty based on consistent evidence and their active participation in the occurrence. However, it set aside the conviction of Ajay Yadav and Shashi Yadav due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issue was the involvement of each appellant in the occurrence and the credibility of the prosecution's evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence presented, contradictions in the prosecution's case, and the specific actions of each appellant to determine their guilt. It extended the benefit of doubt to Ajay Yadav and Shashi Yadav.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of Vijay Yadav and Prashant Yadav, while setting aside the conviction and sentence of Ajay Yadav and Shashi Yadav.
RAKESH KUMAR, J.
In both the appeals, the appellants were tried together and by common judgment in Sessions Trial No. 226 of 2010 (arising out of Dharhara P.S. Case No. 13 of 2009), they were held guilty, convicted and sentenced and as such, both the appeals were taken up together for final hearing and are being dispose of by this common judgment.
2. All the aforesaid four appellants by judgment dated 14-03-2012 were convicted for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and by order dated 16-03-2012, all the appellants under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) each. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Vijay Yadav (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 396 of 2012) by judgment dated 14-03-2012, besides being convicted under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C., was also convicted for commission of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Arms Act’) and by order dated 16-03-2012, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for commission of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand). In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellants were convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 226 of 2010 by Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C.-3, Munger (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Judge’).
3. Short fact of the case is that on 22-02-2009 at 10:20 AM, Sub-Inspector of Police Sri Satyendra Kumar (P.W.9), officer incharge of Hemjapur Police Station, Dharhara recorded fardbeyan of Sri Ramakant Kumar @ Ramakant Yadav (P.W.7) S/o Kamal Kishore Yadav, resident of Village – Chharapatti Hemjapur O.P., P.S. Dharhara, District – Munger. Fardbeyan was recorded in the village Chharapatti. In the fardbeyan, the informant disclosed that with his neighbour Vijay Yadav (appellant in Cr.Appeal No. 396 of 2012) dispute regarding raising of wall was earlier going on, in which, by intervention of village panchayat, dispute was settled. Today i.e. 22-02-2009, the work for the purposes of concreting of roof of appellants, rods were being laid, in which, the accused persons, encroaching over the land of the informant, were tying rods. Thereafter, his brother Ram Sevak Yadav (deceased) aged about 25 years inquired from Vijay Yadav as to why he was encroaching over the land by way of extending rods, whereupon, Vijay Yadav (appellant in Cr. Appeal DB No. 396/12) S/o Bhuvaneshwar Yadav, Prashant Yadav (appellant no. 2 in Cr. Appeal DB No. 307/12) S/o Vijay Yadav, Ajay Prasad Yadav (appellant no. 1 in Cr. Appeal DB No. 307/12) S/o Bhuvaneshwar Yadav and Raja Yadav @ Niraj Yadav S/o Bhuvaneshwar Yadav (since died), who were present on the roof using filthy language, threatened to kill him. In the meanwhile, Prashant Yadav (appellant no. 2 in Cr. Appeal DB No. 307/12) got down from the roof and entered in his house, brought a pistol and came on the roof. Bhuvaneshwar Yadav (not charge-sheeted) and Kanta Kumari w/o Vijay Yadav (not charge-sheeted) and also one of the villager of village Lagma was carrying rifle came there and all exhorted to finish him (deceased). In the meanwhile, Vijay Yadav (appellant in Cr. Appeal DB No. 396/12) took pistol from the hand of Prashant Yadav (appellant no. 2 in Cr. Appeal DB No. 307/12) and with intent to kill his brother, fired from pistol, which hit below the nose of his brother Ram Sevak Yadav and thereafter, he fell down and he died instantaneously at the place of occurrence. He further disclosed that the occurrence took place at about 9:30 AM. After being satisfied with the contents of fardbeyan as correct, he put his signature on the fardbey
