IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
A. M. BADAR and RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
(10.8.2022)
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 224 with 267 of 2014
Pradeep Yadav (in 224)
Arun Yadav (in 267) : Appellants
Vs.
State of Bihar : Respondent
(in both)
Indian Penal Code, 1860–Sections 302/34–Arms Act 1959–Section 27–Murder–Common intention–Life sentence–When eyewitness account is available, there is no need to prove motive of crime in question–Evidence of all eyewitnesses is clear, consistent and cogent–Defence has not brought on record any material to disbelieve their version about the incident–Medical evidence is fully supporting version of eyewitnesses–However, prosecution has failed to trace out projectile–Prosecution has not got projectile and empty cartridge tested in order to determine that projectile and empty cartridge were fired from seized pistol–In case of variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence, oral evidence of eyewitness has to get primacy over medical evidence unless and until oral evidence is totally inconsistent with medical evidence–When there is slight variation between ocular evidence and medical evidence, ocular evidence always prevails–It cannot be said that prosecution case is improbable or unbelievable–Appeals partly allowed. (Paras 5, 9, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26)
Indian Penal Code, 1860–Section 34–Common intention–Ingredients–Accused persons sharing common intention must be physically present at scene of occurrence and be shown not to have dissuaded themselves from intended criminal act for which they share common intention. (Para 24)
Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263; Salim Zia vs. State of U.P., 1979 SC 391; Ram Narain vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727; Kapildeo Mandan vs. State of Bihar, 2008(1) PLJR 209(SC); Suresh vs. State of U.P., (2001) 3 SCC 673; Chhott Ahirwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 4 SCC 126–Referred.
A. M. BADAR, J.:–Appellant/accused Arun Yadav and appellant/accused Pradeep Yadav, by these two separate appeals are challenging the judgment and order dated 19.02.2014 and 20.02.2014 respectively, passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge –II, Nawada, in Sessions Case No. 42 of 2013/16 of 2013, thereby convicting them and sentencing them appropriately. Appellant/accused Arun Yadav has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act 1959. Accordingly, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life apart from imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, he is sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Some default sentence is also imposed for non-payment of fine. Appellant/accused Pradeep Yadav has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imposition for life apart from imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. As both these appeals are arising out of common judgment and order, they are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in their original capacity as an accused.
2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the accused gathered from the Police report can be summarized thus:—
(A) According to the prosecution case, these accused persons along with others, in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Munna Mian at about 7:30 PM of 31.10.2012 at Bhatta Garh falling under jurisdiction of Police Station Roh of District Nawada.
(B) Munna Mian was residing at village Bhatta Garh along with his family members including his mother PW 7 Hasiba Khatoon, his sister PW 10 Baby Khatoon (the First Informant) and his brother-in-law PW 9 Md. Khalid Akhtar. At about 7:00 to 7:30 PM of 31.10.2012, Munna Mian (since deceased) along with his neighbor PW 5 Mohammad Jubair Ahmad were going towards the southern side of their village for answering the nature’s call. When they reached at the Toddy shop of PW11 Yugal Chaudhary, both the accused persons accompanied by others came from southern side. They caught hold of Munna Mian and at the instigation of accused Pradeep Yadav, accused Arun Yadav fired a bullet at the left temporal region of Munna Mian. Munna Mian suffered a fall and the people present there started shouting. The accused person along with their associates ran away towards the southern direction. Because of the sound of Gun fire and shouts of people, PW 1 Md. Jawed Husain, PW 2 Md. Reyazuddin, PW 7 Hasiba Khatoon and PW 10 Baby Khatoon rushed at the spot of the incident. According to the prosecution case, PW 6 Sakim Shah and PW 9 Md. Khalid Akhtar so also PW 11 Yugal Choudhary, PW 12 Upendra Sharma and PW 13 Naresh Ravidas had witnessed the incident of commission of murder of Munna Miya.
(C) Because of bullet wound, Munna Mian died on the spot of the incident instantaneously. Informant about the incident reached at Police Station Roh. That is how Sub-Inspector Pramod Kumar, Station House Officer, went to Bhatta Garh where at about 8:30 PM of 31.10.2012 itself, PW 10 Baby Khatoon reported the incident and accordingly the FIR came to be lodged. Formal FIR came to be prepared thereafter by registering Crime No. 100 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
(D) During the course of investigation, dead body of Munna Mian came to be inspected and in present of PW 1 Md. Javed Husain, inquest notes came to be recorded. It was then sent for post mortem examination to the Sadar Hospital, Nawada, where PW 4 Dr. Prabhakar Singh had conducted the autopsy on 01.11.2012. The spot of the incident
The conviction under Sections 302 IPC and Arms Act was upheld based on corroborative evidence and the significance of prompt FIR lodging, affirming established motive and forensic linkage.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
Conviction based solely on testimonies of related witnesses is unsafe without independent corroboration, as evidenced by inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant inconsistencies and investigative lapses led to reasonable doubt in the evidence presented.
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to reliance on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from interested parties and lack of independent evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.