IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.170 of 2013
(25.11.2024)
Sita Ram Yadav & Anr. ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 324, 341 and 307/34 & Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 118 – Conviction on the testimony of family members – The accused/appellant assaulted the informant with knife at 1 A.M. in the night while he was asleep and on getting the knife blow he woke up – The witnesses examined before the trial court are family members as at the time of occurrence, it is not possible that any independent witness would be present at the place of occurrence – It is well settled principle of law that the testimony of any family members of the victim cannot be discarded only on account of his/her relationship with the victim and there are less chances that other witnesses will be present at the place of occurrence at night – So that related witness is natural witness – If other witnesses are produced before the trial court, that can make his presence doubtful at the place of occurrence – Conduct of the appellants also established their intention for killing the informant and no ground of false implication is made out – Conviction of appellants upheld – However, the case being of the year 1999 and the appellants struggling since then and the appellant being in sufficient judicial custody, the period of sentence reduced to the period already undergone. (Paras 16 to 18)
State of U.P. Vs. Tribhuwan, 2018 (1) BLJ 13 (SC) : (2018) 1 SCC 90 – Relied.
Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.—The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the Judgment of conviction dated 19.02.2013 and order of sentence dated 23.02.2013 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional and Sessions Judge-IV, Supaul (hereinafter referred to as the learned ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2007 / 60 of 2011 arising out of Baptiyahi P.S. Case No. 30 of 1999 instituted for an offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years each and also liable to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine, they are further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Heard Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants assisted by Mr. Suraj Kumar and Ms. Geeta Kumari and Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, learned APP for the State.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, on 18.07.1999 at 0500 hours, the informant aforesaid gave his fardbeyan in his Gohal to the S.I. of P.S. concerned stating therein that in the previous night at 10 PM, the informant retired to his bed in his Gohal and when he was asleep, then at 01:00 AM (night) he received knife blow on his shoulder upon which he woke-up and saw his nephew Sita Ram Yadav s/o Raso Yadav was standing holding knife in his hand then informant tried to get hold of him but other accused persons including co-appellant namely Phutai, Bhago Yadav, Sukhai Yadav, Raso Yadav, Narain Yadav, Mahadeo Yadav, Binod Yadav, Dhulki Yadav and Radheshyam Yadav came from behind holding knife and Talwar in their hands and co-accused Bhutai Yadav and Raso Yadav ordered to kill the informant upon which the co-accused persons started giving knife blow, over his mouth, upon which his lip and jaw including his teeth got injured and hung due to severe cut injuries. On hulla, informant’s wife, Bahulia Devi (PW-4), his two daughters Buchni Devi and Sobha Kumari, his son Ramphal Yadav (PW-1) and his daughter in-law Babita Devi woke up and came running to the place of occurrence and then the accused persons started fleeing away seeing the above inmates of the house. Villagers Ganga Yadav, Sobhi Yadav and several others came to witness the occurrence. The cause of occurrence as stated in his fardbeyan is the long-standing land dispute going between them and out of this enmity they are cultivating his land forcibly. Moreover, the accused persons hurled killing threat upon informant several time before and at one time they took away his ox forcibly at the point of gun.
4. On the basis of said fardbeyan, the Baptiyahi P.S. Case No. 30 of 1999 was registered for an offence under Sections 323, 327, 341 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code was instituted and investigation was taken up by the police, thereafter charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons. After taking cognizance, the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate for commitment. The case was committed on 19.12.2006 and sent to the learned court of Session Judge for the trail and disposed of the case.
5. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in this case, out of them, PW-1 Ramphal Yadav, PW-2 Dasan Yadav, PW-3 Ganga Ram Yadav, PW-4 Jhulia Devi @ Bhabulia Devi (wife of the informant), PW-5 Luxmi Yadav, PW-6 Dr. Anzar Ahmad and PW-7 Chakram Yadav (informant). On the other hand, the defence has also adduced evidence both oral and documentary in this case which are as follows:—
(i) Defence has examined only one defence witness namely Vidyanand Yadav whose evidence is formal in nature exhibiting the signature of Chakram Yadav (PW-7) on compromise petition as also on permission pe
The testimony of family members is credible and should not be dismissed solely due to their relationship with the victim, especially in the absence of independent witnesses.
Credibility of witness testimony and the need for corroborative evidence are essential in sexual assault cases; mere hearsay and inconsistencies cannot support a conviction.
Convictions must be grounded in reliable evidence; lack of medical and corroborative testimony undermines prosecutorial claims, thereby entitling the accused to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
Credible eyewitness testimony can substantiate charges in criminal cases, regardless of the absence of motive, provided it instills confidence in the court.
Conviction under Section 304 IPC upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony; appellant acquitted under Section 323 IPC due to lack of medical evidence.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt leads to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; eyewitness identification and medical corroboration affirmed the conviction under various sections of the IPC and Arms Act.
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.