Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR and ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 1000 of 2018 with 758 of 2009 and 198 of 2010
(5.9.2023)
Surendra Yadav (in 1000)
Subba Yadav (in 758)
Ramchandra Yadav (in 198) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Deceased was an Ex-MLA of area who is alleged to have been hacked to death by appellants – Mere delay in lodging F.I.R., when explanation for same is offered, would not result in prosecution case being completely demolished but, in present case, facts speak for themselves – Deceased was not forced to leave with appellants – Had there been any intention of appellants in taking deceased to a desolate place for killing him, they would not have been village-bound – Deceased had been a public figure and it cannot be said that his family members would not have been aware about any hospital or clinic nearby which could have been approached – Leaving dead body in middle of field for whole of night is something what does not appear to be a natural conduct of family members and kith and kin of deceased – Though post-mortem report is quite in consonance with accusation hurled against appellants, it means nothing in background of P.Ws. having seen dead body from very close quarters and for a long time before reporting it to police, when they would have known number and nature of injuries – Most of witnesses, who have claimed to have seen appellants fleeing away, appear to be chance witnesses – Deceased, in his political capacity and as a representative of his caste, had offended many – Some of his foes might have found him unguarded in field or towards the village when he would have been killed – Appellants acquitted of all charges levelled against them by giving them benefit of doubt. (Paras 8, 19, 21, 23, 28, 31, 33, 34 and 35)
Ashutosh Kumar, J. – All the three appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. We have heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri for the appellant/surendra Yadav (Cr. App. (DB) No. 1000 of 2018) and Mr. Prabhakar Singh, learned advocate for appellant/Ramchandra Yadav (Cr. App. (DB) No. 198 of 2010).
3. Since nobody has appeared on behalf of appellant/Subba Yadav (Cr. App. (DB) No. 758 of 2009), we have requested Sri Madhav Raj, learned advocate to be the Amicus. Accepting our request, he has assisted us on behalf of appellant/Subba Yadav.
4. All the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC. Appellants/Subba Yadav and Ramchandra Yadav were tried in Sessions Trial No. 121/9 of 2006 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua. They were convicted by judgment dated 21.07.2009 and by order dated 28.07.2009, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for six months.
5. Since appellant/Surrendra Yadav absconded from the court premises, his trial was separated and he was ultimately tried in Sessions Case No. 121 of 2006 / Sessions Trial No. 598 of 2017 by the learned Fast Track Court, 1st, Kaimur at Bhabua.
6. The judgment of conviction of appellant/Surrendra Yadav is of 02.05.2018 and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer S.I. for one year by order dated 02.05.2018.
7. The witnesses examined in both the sessions trials are one and same but the sequence in which they were examined is different. For the sake of convenience, we shall be referring to the deposition of witnesses in Sessions Trial No. 121/9 of 2006 challenged in Cr. App. (DB) No. 758 of 2009 and Cr. App. (DB) No. 198 of 2010.
8. The deceased of these cases is an Ex- MLA of the area who is alleged to have been hacked to death by the three appellants. The weapon of assault is stated to be Kulhari (a sharp cutting weapon used for felling trees) which all the appellants were wielding at the time of occurrence.
9. Lalbrat Singh Kharwar, who is the son of the deceased and has been examined as P.W.9 in Sessions Trial No. 121/9 of 2006 had lodged the FIR on 03.01.2006, at about 4.50 PM alleging that a day before i.e. 02.01.2006 in the evening hours while the deceased was sitting at his Khalihan situated about 1 KM away from the house, the appellants came and talked to him. After talking to him for ten minutes, they accompanied the deceased towards the village. In the meantime, some animals strayed in the gram field and P.W.9 along with one Kundal Singh (P.W.5) became busy in shepherding out those cattle from the field. The deceased and the appellants had moved for about 100 yards and when they reached near the field of one Pyarey Lal, the deceased shouted for help. P.W.9 rushed towards the direction from where his father (deceased) had been shouting. He saw the appellants running towards eastern direction with their respective weapons viz. Garasa and Kulhari. He saw that his father had been hit by those weapons as a result of which he was seriously injured. On hulla, many persons of the neighborhood and of the village including Ramashish Kharwar (P.W.1), Nandkishore Kharwar (P.W.2) and Jawahar Kharwar (not examined) came. Because of the police station situated at a distance from the P.O., there was inordinate delay in informing the police about the occurrence.
10. According to P.W.9, there was no communication facility in the village. The cause of occurrence, according to P.W.9, is the general dispute between Yadavas and Kharwars. As a result of political dispute, the possibility of the deceased having been killed was also not ruled out. The deceased had been an Ex-MLA and he may have had offended many.
11. On the basis of the aforenoted Fardbeyan statement of P.W.9, Chainpur P.S. Case No. 2 of 2006 dated 03.01.2006 was instituted for invest
The judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness consistency and timely reporting in establishing guilt in murder cases, despite claims of procedural delays.
The principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.
Eyewitness accounts unreliable due to inconsistencies, visibility doubts (distances, covered faces, hiding), suppressed initial report; benefit of doubt requires acquittal in multiple murder case by ....
The court established that eyewitness consistency and forensic evidence can substantiate a murder conviction, even in the face of claims regarding delayed reporting.
The court established that inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence warrant acquittal in murder cases, highlighting the benefit of doubt principle.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
