SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Pat) 718

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.
 
Banshraj Yadav @ Banshraj Singh Yadav, Son of Ramayan Yadav - Appellant 
Versus 
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.861 of 2006
Decided On : 08-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Amicus Cuirae.
For the Respondent: Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP.

Conviction under Section 304 IPC upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony; appellant acquitted under Section 323 IPC due to lack of medical evidence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 304/34 and 323/34 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Conviction upheld for 304/34 for the killing of Chirkut Yadav, while acquitting appellant of 323/34 due to lack of evidence - Appellant sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for murder and one year for hurt, both running concurrently. (Paras 2-22)

(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Eyewitness testimony holds substantial weight. The absence of motive does not undermine credible testimony. The credibility of related witnesses is not automatically diminished. (Para 15)

(C) Legal Representation - Court appointed Amicus Curiae to represent the appellant, highlighting the importance of legal support in criminal appeals. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.

Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 23.08.2006 and order of sentence dated 25.08.2006 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 695 of 1994/235 of 2004 arising out of Durgawati P.S. Case No. 34 of 1994 dated 10.05.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)-II, Kaimur, Bhabhua, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304/34 part II and Sections 323 /34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’) and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Sections 304/34 part II of the IPC and further one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34 of the IPC and both the sentences will run concurrently.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant, namely Radhe Shyam Singh (PW-5) recorded fardbeyan on 10.05.1994 at 3:00 pm before police that on 09.05.1994 in evening at 7:00 pm there was an exchange of hot words between the appellant Ramayan Yadav and deceased Chirkut Yadav. In the meanwhile the appellant and other accused armed with lathi came at there assaulted Chirkut Yadav. Later he was being treated in his own house itself but when the deceased felt several pain he was brought to the hospital for the treatment. Later on, the deceased Chirkut Yadav died in Varanasi.

4. Further on the basis of fardbeyan of informant Durgawati P.S. Case no. 34 of 1994 dated 10.05.1994 under Sections 341, 323/34 of the IPC has been registered and after investigation charge-sheet against this appellant has been submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 302 of the IPC and accordingly cognizance against this appellant has been taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge was framed which was explained to the accused who denied of prosecution taking plea of false implication in the case and declared himself innocent.

5. On behalf of prosecution altogether 7 witnesses were examined to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant, who are namely, PW-1 Kailash Yadav, PW-2 Bhola Yadav, PW-3 Kaushalya Devi (wife of deceased), PW-4 Meera Devi (daughter-in-law), PW-5 Radheshyam Singh, PW-6 Dr. Sunil Kumar Tripathi and PW-7 Ambika Tiwari (formal witness of injury report).

6. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief stated that incident is of about 5-6 years ago at 7 pm when I was returning from Chapra saw that quarrel was going on among Ramanand Yadav, Jitendra, Chirkut, Radheshyam, Mira, Radheshyam wife and Radheshyam’s mother. Both sides were firing bullets and in that occurrence Chirkut Yadav’s head got injured and he got many injuries on his waist and arms. In the morning Chirkut was brought to police station and from there he was taken to the hospital. Thereafter, he was referred to Varanasi and after two to three days PW-1 went there and found that Chirkut Yadav has died.

6.i. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that when he went to place of occurrence he saw that blood was oozing out from the head of Chirkut Yadav and Chirkut Yadav was lying down there. Chirkut Yadav had fallen on bricks and there blood stain on his dhoti and ganji. He had seen that blood was dripping out from the head of Chirkut Yadav. In para 10 of his deposition, he stated that when he reached the hospital, Radhe Shyam, Raju, Bhola said that Chirkut Yadav had died. In para 13 of his deposition, he stated he was made accused in kidnapping case of Ajit Yadav.

7. PW-2 in his examination-in-chief stated that he is the brother of the deceased and accused/appellant had beaten Chirkut with lathi on the head and his brother got severe injuries on other body parts, while undergoing treatment Chirkut Yadav died in Varanasi in para-8, he stated that when he came

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