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) 970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Vipul M. Pancholi, Ramesh Chand Malviya, JJ.
Mukesh Kumar @ Tuntun @ Rajvir @ Tuntun Yadav S/o Veda Nand Yadav - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1192, 1242, 1277, 1328, 1360, 1416 of 2017
Decided On : 21-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Saket Kumar Singh, Mr. Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. Dinesh Choudhary, Mr. R.P. Sharma, Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Mr. K.N. Sahay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP

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.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 120

(B) - Arms Act - Section 27 - Appeals against conviction and sentence for murder and related offences - Conviction based on testimonies of near relatives, with no independent witnesses examined - Medical evidence contradicts eyewitness accounts - Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt - Appeals allowed, conviction quashed. (Paras 1, 15, 26)

(B) Eyewitness Testimony - Reliability - Testimony of near relatives requires careful scrutiny, especially in cases of group rivalries - Absence of independent witnesses raises doubts on prosecution's case. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Vinod Yadav, allegedly due to enmity arising from Panchayat elections. The incident involved multiple assailants who fired indiscriminately at the victim. The informant identified the accused but was related to the deceased. (Paras 3.1, 3.5)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and lack of independent corroboration. (Paras 25, 26)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitnesses, the absence of independent witnesses, and the reliability of medical evidence. (Paras 18, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in cases relying on eyewitness testimony from interested parties. (Paras 25, 26)

Result: Appeals allowed; conviction quashed and appellants acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

These appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment of conviction dated 19.08.2017 and order of sentence dated 21.08.2017, passed by learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Naugachia in S.T. No.5/17 (Trial No.815/17), arising out of Naugachia P.S. Case No.149/16 dated 20.08.2016 whereby the court has convicted all the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have again been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In case of default of payment of fine, awarded as above, the appellants have\been sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years which will be in addition to the punishment awarded to them. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1277 of 2017, at the outset, submits that appellant, namely, Nand Kishor Mandal has died. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid statement, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1277 of 2017 stands abated.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:-

3.1 Fardbeyan of Sunita Devi came to be recorded on 20.08.2016 at 09:00 hours in Sub-divisional Hospital, Naugachia wherein the informant has stated that on 20.08.2016 at about 07:15 a.m., the informant along with her brothers-in-law, namely, Vinod Yadav and Jai Krishna Kumar as also Vijay Yadav were going towards her Basa. It is stated in the fardbeyan that Vinod Yadav was walking ahead at about 50-60 ft. As soon as Vinod Yadav reached near the house of Shankar Yadav at 07:30 a.m., suddenly three motorcycles from front side and two motorcycles from back side came there and three persons were riding on each motorcycles. They surrounded Vinod Yadav and started indiscriminate firing. When the informant and others tried to save him, the accused persons pointed their guns towards them and threatened them not to move any more. The informant claims to have identified the accused persons as Ajit Kumar, Sumit Kumar @ Rupesh Kumar, Rajeev Kumar, Sachin @ Sachcho Yadav, Pintu Singh, Saurabh Kumar Singh, Mankeshwar Singh @ Mantu Singh, Kamando Rai, Chhotu Yadav, Kumodi Yadav, Arvind Yadav and Balkeshwar Singh @ Balo Singh. The informant further stated in her fardbeyan that she can also identify the three other accused persons. It is further alleged that the accused persons after surrounding her brother-in-law, namely, Vinod Yadav started firing indiscriminately and killed him at the spot. The informant alleged that the reason behind the occurrence is Panchayat election and previous enmity.

3.2 After registration of the formal FIR on the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, the Investigating Agency started investigation. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses, collected the documentary evidence and thereafter filed charge-sheet against the appellants.

3.3 The case was exclusively triable by court of sessions and, therefore, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the concerned sessions court where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No.5/17.

3.4 During course of trial, the prosecution had examined 7 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Prabhat Kumar @ Pappu Yadav, PW-2 Vijay Yadav, PW-3 Prem Sagar @ Dabloo Yadav, PW-4 Jai Krishna Yadav, PW-5 Sunita Devi, PW-6 Sanjay Kumar Sudhansu

    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