Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SHAILENDRA SINGH, JJ.
Rajendra Yadav @ Rajendra Singh Yadav, S/o. Raghunath Yadav @ Raghunath Singh Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.265 of 2024
Decided On : 27-06-2024
JUDGMENT :
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional P.P., for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 18.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kaimur at Bhabua in Sessions Trial No. 130 of 2016, arising out of Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 145 of 2014 (State vs. Santosh Yadav & Ors.) whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has been pleased to conclude that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Having said so, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused persons-respondents by giving them benefit of doubt from the charges under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120B/34 Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).
Prosecution Story
3. As per the prosecution story, on 18.09.2014 the nephew of the informant went to Mundeshwari temple but did not return till 05.10.2014. After 17-18 days, the informant received an information that a half dead body has been found at the bank of Suwara river and thereafter he went for verification of the same and identified the dead body as of his nephew Dinesh Yadav by the cloths of the deceased. The informant alleged that the accused persons, namely, Santosh Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Subash Yadav, Ashok Yadav and Chandrawati Devi killed his nephew due to prior enmity and disposed the dead body into the river.
4. On the basis of the written report submitted on 05.10.2014, Bhagwanpur PS Case No. 145 of 2014 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B/34 IPC against the accused persons namely (i) Santosh Yadav; (ii) Suresh Yadav; (iii) Subash Yadav; (iv) Ashok Yadav; and (v) Chandrawati Devi. After investigation, Police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 302, 201 and 120B/34 IPC against all the accused persons. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the records to the court of Sessions for trial. The charges were framed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120B/34 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, altogether ten witnesses were examined and eight documents were exhibited in course of trial which are being shown hereunder in a tabular form:-
| PW-1 | Vijay Kumar Yadav (uncle of the deceased) |
| PW-2 | Bechan Singh Yadav |
| PW-3 | Chhabinath Singh Yadav |
| PW-4 | Radhe Yadav |
| PW-5 | Chinta Devi (mother of the deceased) |
| PW-6 | Manoj Yadav (uncle of the deceased) |
| PW-7 | Rajendra Yadav (informant) |
| PW-8 | Sudama Kumar Singh (I.O. of the case) |
| PW-9 | Dhananjay Kumar Singh |
| PW-10 | Arund Kumar Singh (Doctor) |
List of Exhibits:-
| Ext-1 | The signature of Vijay Kr. Yadav on the inquest report | Prosecution | 03.06.2016 | Without objection | Sessions Judge 03.06.2016 |
| Ext-1/1 | The signature of Bechan Singh Yadav on the inquest report | do | 17.08.2016 | do | Sessions Judge 17.08.2016 |
| Ext-2 | Fardbeyan | do | 08.06.2017 | do | Sessions Judge 08.06.2017 |
| Ext-2/1 | Endorsement on the fardbeyan | do | 27.07.2017 | do | do |
| Ext-3 | Fardbeyan | do | 27.07.2017 | do | do |
| Ext-4 | Formal FIR | do | 27.07.2017 | do | do |
| Ext-5 | Inquest report | do | do | do | do |
| Ext-6 | Bone examination report | prosecution | 05.02.2019 | Without objection | Sessions Judge 05.02.2019 |
6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded in which they pleaded total denial of the case and false implication by the informant. The defence neither examined any witness nor any documentary evidence was produced. In the aforeme
The prosecution must establish a clear criminological chain in circumstantial evidence cases; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and motive, leading to the acquittal of the appellants in a murder case.
Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible ....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere circumstantial evidence and delayed FIR weaken the case, necessitating independent corroboration.
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
The acquittal of the accused is sustained as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the unreliability of witness testimonies and the significance of the presu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the prosecution in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment emphasizes the need for the prosecution to establish....
Conviction based solely on testimonies of related witnesses is unsafe without independent corroboration, as evidenced by inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence.
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
