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
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
Santa Singh v. State of Punjab
Tara Chand v. State of Haryana
Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi
Baldeo Singh v. State of Bihar
Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P.
Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu
Ram Jag and others v. The State of U.P.
Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab
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.
Conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness if credible, but significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
(1) Number of witnesses – There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness – But if there are doubts about testimony courts will insist on corroboration.(2) M....
1) When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them same or similar role, court cannot convict one accused and acquit other.(2) In cases where injurie....
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....
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
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.