IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ashutosh Kumar, Jitendra Kumar, JJ.
Krishna Yadav @ Megha Yadav, S/o- Chhabila Yadav and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.731 of 2018, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 791 of 2018, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 798 of 2018, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 804 of 2018, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 821 of 2018
Decided On : 30-09-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the factual background and proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. principles regarding evidence evaluation and witness credibility. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. the court's analysis and findings on witness reliability and evidence. (Para 39 , 40 , 46 , 52 , 53) |
| 5. final judgment, acquittal of the appellants. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
JUDGMENT :
JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
All the appeals have been taken up together as they have been preferred against the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.2018 and 07.05.2018 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Vth, Siwan, in Sessions Case No. 475 of 2016 arising out of Pachrukhi Sarai P.S. Case No. 99 of 2015, whereby all six appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 148 , 323/149, 324/149 and 302/149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each under Section 302 /149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . All the appellants have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 148 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . They have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay a fine of Rs.800/- each for offence punishable under Section 323 /149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . However, no separate punishment has been passed under Section 324 /149 of the IPC. In case of default to pay the fine, all the appellants have been directed to undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. By the order of sentence, fifty per cent of the fine has also been directed to pay to Santosh Kumar Singh and Sanjay Kumar Singh who are brothers of the deceased, Amit Kumar.
Prosecution case
2. The prosecution case as emerging from the Fardbeyan of the informant recorded by S.I, S.N. Singh, SHO Sarai O.P. on 25.04.2015 at 23:00 O’clock at Sadar Hospital, Siwan, is that he runs tent and tea shop at village market. He was at that shop at 7:00 P.M. Some villagers of Nawada were eating Bhoonja (fried grains) from the shop of Sugriv Sah and when the shopkeeper Sugriv Sah asked for the payment of the price, they abused him. Upon this, shopkeepers from the vicinity assembled and requested them to pay the price to the poor shopkeeper. Upon this, they got angry and threatened of dire consequences and they went to their village and after half an hour, the appellants besides Ajit and Hiralal Yadav and 3-4 unknown persons came and started beating the shopkeepers and villagers. Consequently, Swaminath Sah, Munna Singh, Sanjay Kumar Sah and some other persons sustained injuries. In the meantime, Amit Kumar, younger brother of the informant was coming after attending the call of nature. Seeing him, Harishankar Chaudhary stated that he is brother of the tea shopkeeper and exhorted other to finish him. Hearing this, Krishna Yadav @ Megha Yadav who was carrying Kulhari (Axe) in his hand assaulted his brother on head with intent to kill him. Subsequently, he got badly injured and fell on the road. Thereafter, they started beating him by dangerous arms in their hands. Consequently, his brother got unconscious. He took his brother to Sadar Hospital with the help of the villagers where from he was referred to Gorakhpur Hospital. On the way to Gorakhpur, in ambulance, his brother died near Gopalganj. He came back to Sadar Hospital with dead body of his brother and gave his fardbeyan. The occurrence has been seen by him besides shopkeepers and many villagers in the light of electricity.
Factual Background
3. On the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant, Pachrukhi Sarai P.S. Case No. 99 of 2015 was registered on 26.04.2015 against 8 named accused persons including the appellants herein and 3-4 unknown persons for the offence punish
Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh & Ors.
Mano Dutt and another Vs. State of UP.
Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra
Pulicherla Nagaraju Vs. State of A.P.
Harbans Kaur Vs. State of Haryana
Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of AP
Piara Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
Appabhai and another Vs. State of Gujarat
C. Muniappan & others Vs. State of T.N.
State of U.P. Vs. Krishan Master
Appabhai & Anr. Vs. State of Gujrat
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dal Singh
S. Govidaarju Vs. State of Karnataka
Narotam Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Anr.
Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana
Subal Ghorai and Ors. Vs. State of WB
Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors.
The court reaffirmed the principle that a prosecution case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimony necessitated acquittal due to reasonable doubt.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in testimonies undermine the case.
The significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
Conviction under Sections 302 and 326 of IPC requires credible ocular evidence, with emphasis on eyewitness credibility, especially from injured parties, establishing guilt despite differing roles am....
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
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 court affirmed that eyewitness testimony, even from relatives, can be credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases.
Once there is no eye-witness of incident prosecution will have to establish a motive for commission of crime.
Testimony of interested witnesses is not a sole criterion to disbelieve their versions.
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.