IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and
G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 362 of 2019
(3.5.2024)
Upendra Yadav ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 303, 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 336 and 337 & Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 & Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 2 – Murder – Intention – Relevant fact – Appellant alleged to have fired at the appellant resulting in his death – The fact that whether the appellant was present at the second place of occurrence with a gun, the fact that whether the appellant was instigated by Jagdish and Nayan Kumar to fire upon the deceased would be relevant within the meaning of Section 2 of the Indian Evidence Act – In a case where a person is accused of murder of another person it would be a relevant fact to establish that the person who has been charged with committing murder of a person intended to cause death of that person – In the present case, the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove it as a matter of fact that the appellant intended to cause death of deceased. (Paras 36)
Criminal Trial – Medical Evidence vis-à-vis Oral Evidence – Ocular evidence is that the firing was done from a distance of 12-15 feet from down to upside, therefore, as per the medical jurisprudence, the charring and blackening margin of wounds would not have been possible from a distance of 12-15 feet – P.W.-11 (sic, 12) is unable to say as to from how much distance the firing took place – He has further failed to say regarding the direction of the firing, whether was from up to down or down to up – As per the post mortem report P.W.-11 (sic, 12) found charring and blackening margin wounds which could have been possible only if the shotgun would have been discharged from a distance of about 3-4 feet – In view of the judicial pronouncement of S.C., the injuries noted by P.W. 11(sic, 12) in course of autopsy on the dead body do not corroborate the manner of occurrence as disclosed by PWs. (Paras 42, 44 and 50)
Dahari Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 256; Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 476; Sanichar Sahni Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 7 SCC 198; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116; V.C. Shukla Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 SC 1382; State of Punjab Vs. Rajinder Singh, (2009) 15 SCC 612 – Referred.
Budh Singh Vs. State of MP, (2007) 10 SCC 496; State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302; Baso Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 13 SCC 65 – Relied.
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2019 and 31.01.2019 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial no. 196/2016 arising out of Dumrao (New Bhojpur) P.S. Case no 171/2015 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 336, 337, 302 of Indian penal code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of arms act.
2. By the Judgment under appeal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned Judgment’), learned trial court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25000/- under Section 302 of IPC and in default of payment of fine the appellant has to undergo imprisonment for six months and he has been been further sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 27 of Arms Act and in default of payment of fine the appellant has to undergo three months of imprisonment. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Prosecution story:
3. As per the prosecution story, fardbeyan of the informant Kamaldev Singh (PW -3) was recorded on 26.05.2015 at 13:30 hours by S.I. Devanand Sharma, O. P. Incharge of Naya Bhojpur O. P. at Sadar Hospital. It is stated by the informant that on 26.05.2015 in morning the boys of the informant's village were playing cricket and while playing a dispute arose between them due to which Manoj Yadav caused head injury to the informant's cousin Ramashish Yadav, who was grazing buffalo in fields, by lathi. Thereafter, the informant provided him treatment at local level and they complained to the family members of Manoj Yadav in this regard. It is further alleged that around 9:00 A.M. in morning when the informant’s side were sitting at ‘palani’ (hut made of straw) his villagers namely, Nayan Kumar @ Sadhu Yadav, Bhim Yadav, Jagdish Yadav, Gama Yadav, Upendra Yadav (appellant), Birendra Yadav, Guruj Yadav, Munna Yadav Manoj Yadav, Ramayan Yadav all armed with sticks, bricks and licensee gun came at palani (hut) of the informant and attacked on them with such weapons. It is alleged that due to such assault Birbal Yadav and Ramashish Yadav suffered injuries. In the meantime Jagdish Yadav and Nayan Kumar @ Sadhu Yadav instigated ^^ns[k D;k jgs gks xksyh ekjks** on which Upendra Yadav (appellant) with the licensee gun fired 2-3 shots aiming informant’s son Ajit Kumar who was standing on the roof which hit him and he fell down. Thereafter the villagers started gathering then all the accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence. After this, the informant and other persons rushed to Sadar Hospital Buxar for treatment of his son where doctors declared him dead.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 5) of the informant (P.W.3) formal FIR bearing No. 171 of 2015 dated 26.05.2015 was registered at Dumrao (New Bhojpur) Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 326, 337, 307 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. After investigation the police submitted Chargesheet no. 281/2015 dated 21.08.2015 and 46/2016 dated 29.02.2016. Whereupon cognizance of the offences was taken by learned C.J.M., Buxar on 16.03.2016 and the records were committed to the Court of Sessions on 21.06.2016 where charges were explained to other accused and the appellant on 20.09.2016 under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 447/149, 336/149, 337/149 while charge under Section 302/149 IPC was framed against seven (‘7’) accused, a charge under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act were explained to Upendra Yadav (appellant) to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In this case the prosecution has examined altogether twelve witnesses, they are: –
P.W. 1 Kapildeo Singh
P.W. 2 Ramashish Yadav (Injured witness and cousin of informant)
P.W. 3 Kamaldeo Singh (Informant)
P.W. 4 Birbal Yadav ( injured witness and cousin of informant)
P.W. 5 Dr. Anil Kumar (exami
Darbara Singh vs. State of Punjab
Sanichar Sahni vs. State of Bihar
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
V.C. Shukla vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Merely, because they have not been examined is not a ground to disbelieve an otherwise credible ocular account rendered by a person injured in the incident whose presence, otherwise also, is natural ....
Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts undermined the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt of their involvement in the crime.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Attempt to murder – Intention to kill must be apparent from act of accused.
Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - Benefit of doubt given to accused – Conviction set aside - On account of enmity based on litigation, there are chances of developing a false case and t....
Key legal principles established include the standards of eyewitness reliability and the requirements for proving possession of intent in conspiracy cases, emphasizing that absence of evidence negate....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible eyewitness testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances, to prove the guilt of the ....
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.