IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Shailendra Singh, JJ.
Karan Yadav Son of Prakash Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.839 of 2019
Decided On : 30-04-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and prosecution story (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. court's analysis on witness credibility (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 3. appellant's defense arguments and inconsistencies in witness testimony (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. acquittal based on benefit of doubt (Para 32) |
| 5. failure to prove motive and delay in f.i.r. (Para 35 , 36) |
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 arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 01.06.2019 and order of sentence dated 13.06.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 222 of 2016 (State vs. Karan Yadav and Anr.) whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has convicted this appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 (1) of the ARMS ACT for murder of the deceased Gulshan Yadav @ Sarwan Yadav by firearm and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- only. On failure to pay the fine, the appellant shall undergo an additional simple imprisonment for a period of two months. He has been further sentenced for five years for the offence under Section 27 (1) of the ARMS ACT and has been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. All the sentences are to run concurrently except imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
Prosecution Story
3. The prosecution story is contained in the fardbeyan of Jitendra Kumar aged about 16 years, son of Jairam Yadav of village Kunnath Mohanpur, P.S. - Gauradih in the District of Bhagalpur. The English translation of the fardbeyan of the informant, who is brother of the deceased are as under:-
“My name is Jitendra Kumar, age about 16 years, s/o- Jairam Yadav, R/o – Kunnath Mohanpur, P.S.- Goradih, Dist.- Bhagalpur. Today, on 12/07/15 at 14:00 hrs, in the premises of Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, I am giving my statement before the officer of O.P. Barari P.S., in the presence of my father Jairam Yadav S/o-Late Gena Yadav that my brother Gulshan Yadav @ Shrawan Yadav, S/o - Jairam Yadav, R/o-Kunnath Mohanpur, P.S. - Goradih, Dist. - Bhagalpur, was forcibly married to Gauri Devi, D/o- Shivanandan Yadav four months ago in the village Korean where my uncle Guddu Yadav’s (S/o-Late Basudev Yadav) in-laws house is situated. Since before Gauri Devi had an illicit relation with Gauri Devi’s Jeeja (sister’s husband) Karn Yadav, s/o- Prakash Yadav, R/o - Mirhatti, P.S.- Sultanganj, Dist.- Bhagalpur. Yesterday, on 11/7/15, upon getting the information of my Bhabhi’s (sister-in-law) illness, I went to my brother Shrawan Kumar’s in-laws house at Korean, from Bhagalpur to Sultanganj. My brother Shrawan Kumar’s Sadhoo (husband of wife’s sister) Karn Yadav works as a Clerk in Sultanpur Bus stand. He along with his two accomplices took my brother and me to Masoomgunj from Sultanganj by an auto. After getting down in Masoomganj near Chamru Baba Asthan (which falls under the jurisdiction of Asarganj P.S.), the two unknown accomplices who were with Karn Yadav, caught hold of my brother into their arms completely and Karn Yadav, after taking out the pistol from his own waist and inserting it into the mouth of my brother fired the shot. In the meantime, I ran away from there and reached the nearby village and explained to them about the occurrence of murder, when along with me about 30 people reached the place of occurrence, then those three persons ran away from that place. After that the I with the help of some persons brought him to Mayaganj Hospital for his treatment. After admission his treatment was started and during treatment on 12/7/15 at around4:00 am he died.
I claim that this occurrence has been committed
Ganpathi and Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu
State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki and Anr.
Motiram Padu Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra
The prosecution bears the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and significant inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on uncorroborated witness testimony, especially from related parties, is insufficient for conviction.
The conviction was overturned due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, affirming that convictions must be based on reliable and corroborative evidence beyond a reasona....
Conviction based solely on testimonies of related witnesses is unsafe without independent corroboration, as evidenced by inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent eyewitness accounts can lead to acquittal.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
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.