SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Pat) 551

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and SHAILENDRA SINGH, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.732 of 2016
(9.9.2024)
Niraj Yadav @ Niraj Kumar Chaudhri & Anr. ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants : M/s Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Devashish Giri, Birendra Kumar Singh.
For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Addl. P.P.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 364A, 302, 120B and 201 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 140, 103, 61 and 238] – Kidnapping for ransom, murder, conspiracy and disappearance of evidence – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – As FIR was registered within two hours from commission of first part of occurrence, so there was no possibility of fabrication of a false story – Evidence of informant with regard to the manner of occurrence of first part, place of occurrence, number of accused, weapons which were allegedly used by them and vehicle which was allegedly used by them in taking victim, regarding direction towards accused proceeded after abduction and regarding place where dead body of victim was found, is completely trustworthy and reliable – If two offences particularly, offence of abduction and thereafter, murder of abducted person are committed in same sequence without no much gap of time and prosecution succeeds to prove first part of occurrence then burden shifts on accused who abducted victim, to explain circumstances under which victim died – Body of victim was recovered pursuant to disclosure statement made by accused – All relevant circumstances from beginning of occurrence and till recovery of dead body of deceased have been proved by prosecution – There is no serious contradiction in between facts of FIR narrated by informant and his evidence – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence affirmed – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 30, 31, 39, 41, 50 and 51)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 194 – Inquest report and post-mortem report cannot be termed to be substantive evidence – Any discrepancy occurring therein can neither be termed to be fatal nor even a suspicious circumstance which would warrant a benefit to accused and the resultant dismissal of prosecution case, as contents of inquest report cannot be termed as evidence though they can be looked into to test veracity of witnesses. (Para 46)

Shailendra Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Devashish Giri, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2016 and order of sentence dated 13.06.2016 passed by the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Case No. 417 of 2015/Trial No. 376 of 2015 arising out of K. Hat P.S. Case No. 517 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 302, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). The appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each for the offence under Section 364A of IPC. They have been further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) each for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. They have been also ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each for the offence under Section 120B of IPC. They have been further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each for the offence under Section 201 of IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

PROSECUTION STORY:—

3. The prosecution’s case in brief is that as per the written report filed by the informant, Amit Ranjan (PW-4), on 03.08.2015 at about 12:30 P.M., while he, along with his nephew, Punit Kumar (the deceased), came near the house of appellant no.1 riding on a motorcycle, then Niraj Yadav and Kishore Yadav (the appellants) who were standing outside their house got their motorcycle stopped and after catching hold of the collar of Punit Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’) by uttering as to why he was not paying Rangdari (extortion money) to them, asked him to pay Rangdari immediately, when the informant and victim showed their incapability to fulfill their demand, the appellants started assaulting them and attempted to pick up and push the victim forcefully inside a white colour car bearing registration No. BR 11M-4242 of Niraj Yadav (appellant no. 1) then resistance was made by the informant but he was threatened by the appellants by pointing pistol at him. Prosecution’s further case is that the appellants forcibly got the victim inside the car of appellant no.1 after assaulting him and thereafter, they drove away the car towards Ufrail Chowk and then the informant rushed behind their vehicle by raising a hulla but the vehicle was diverted by the appellants towards Mewalal Chowk and thereafter, the informant went rushing to Maranga P.S. to inform the police about occurrence and lodge the FIR. The further case of the prosecution is that within three hours from the commission of the abduction of the victim, the appellants were apprehended by the police and in furtherance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant no. 1, the dead body of the victim was found and recovered near the kamat of one namely, Rajendra Khirahari and upon the dead body several injuries were found and there was active bleeding from the nose, forehead and other parts of the body and as per the inquest report (Ext.-4) the dead body was recovered at 5:50 P.M.

4. On the basis of the written report filed by the PW- 4, the formal FIR bearing No. 517 of 2015 was registered at K. Hat Maranga Police Station under Section 364A read with 34 of IPC and later on Section 302 of IPC was added and the FIR set the criminal law in motion.

5. After the completion of investigation, the appellants were chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 364A, 302, 120B and 201 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.

6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, took cognizance of the alleged offences and thereafter, committed the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top