Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Hira Lal Yadav S/o Charku Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1847 of 2017
Decided On : 09-05-2022
Murder - Evidence - IPC 302 - Summary: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC based on the cogent and reliable evidence of the eyewitnesses. The court found that the appellant had premeditated the murder and the single blow with a sharp cutting weapon was sufficient to cause the death of the victim. The appeal was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of the victim. The prosecution's case was based on the evidence of eyewitnesses and the postmortem report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the eyewitnesses, particularly PW-5 and PW-6, was cogent, reliable, and trustworthy regarding the assault and the participation of the appellant in the assault. The court also noted that the nature of the injury indicated premeditation and preconceived intention on the part of the appellant.
Issues: The main issue was the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the eyewitnesses, the postmortem report, and the circumstances of the case to uphold the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.
1. Heard Mr. J.J. Sanga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.09.2012 passed by Sri Satish Chandra Singh, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Simdega in S.T. No. 71/2010, arising out of Simdega P.S. Case No. 55/2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 155/2010, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
3. A fardbeyan was recorded of Sikandar Yadav in which it was alleged that on 20.05.2010 at about 7:00 P.M. when the informant and his family members were having meals in the courtyard Hira Lal Yadav (appellant) came and started shouting and abusing them. A quarrel had also ensued with the father of the informant Larangu Yadav. The matter was somehow pacified and Hira Lal Yadav went home. After having meals the informant and his family members went to sleep when at about 8:00 P.M. Hira Lal Yadav once again came with a Balua in his hand and dragged the father of the informant to the courtyard and assaulted him with the Balua on his neck. When the wife of the informant rushed to the scene she was threatened by Hira Lal Yadav who after sometime threw the Balua and went home. The father of the informant died at the spot.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Simdega P.S. Case No. 55/2010 was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the sole accused Hira Lal Yadav. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was numbered as S.T. No. 71/2010. Charge was framed u/s 302 of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case.
6. PW-1 (Sarju Kumar Yadav) has deposed that the incident is of 20.05.2010 at about 9:00 P.M. He was at his house when he heard Hira Lal Yadav shouting that he will murder Larangu Yadav. After sometime he heard cries of alarm of Sikandar Yadav, Injarmuni Devi and Munni Devi that Larangu Yadav has been murdered. On hearing the cry of alarm, he came outside and was going to the house of Larangu Yadav with Suresh Yadav, when they met Hira Lal Yadav and Charku Yadav. He has stated that Charku Yadav had disclosed that he had gone to pacify the quarrel but Hira Lal Yadav did not yield and committed the murder of Larangu Yadav. When this witness and Suresh Yadav went to the house of Larangu Yadav they found him on the ground with blood spilling out. Larangu Yadav was already dead by then.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is not a witness to the murder.
7. PW-2 (Ramjeet Yadav) has stated that it was on 20.05.2010 at about 9:00 P.M. when on alarm he went to the house of Larangu Yadav and found his dead body lying. Sikandar Yadav, Injarmuni Devi and Munni Devi had disclosed that Hira Lal Yadav has committed the murder of Larangu Yadav. This witness had signed on the inquest report.
8. PW-3 (Suresh Yadav) has stated that he had not seen Hira Lal Yadav committing the murder of Larangu Yadav but he had heard from the family members of the deceased.
9. PW-4 (Napeshwar Yadav) has deposed that on 20.05.2010 in the evening between 7:00-9:00 P.M. he had heard alarm from the house of Sikandar Yadav and when he went he had found the dead body of Larangu Yadav. It was Sikandar Yadav who had disclosed that his father has been murdered by Hira Lal Yadav.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seen the occurrence.
10. PW-5 (Sikandar Yadav) is the informant and the son of the deceased. He has proved the fardbeyan which bears his signature and which has been marked as Exhibit-1. The production cum seizure list of the Balua has been marked as Exhibit-2 and
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on cogent and reliable evidence of eyewitnesses, the nature of the injury, and the circumstances of the case to uphold the conviction ....
Conviction for murder upheld based on consistent eyewitness accounts despite concerns about the independence of witnesses, highlighting the relevance of cohesive testimonies over minor contradictions....
The court emphasized the necessity for corroborative evidence in sustaining a criminal conviction, highlighting the unreliability of witness statements and inconsistencies therein.
[The judgment establishes that in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious charges like murder, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubts r....
The conviction for murder based solely on a solitary eyewitness's testimony was overturned due to contradictions and lack of corroboration from other witnesses.
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and insufficient circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt in the murder case due to inconsistent eyewitness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
It is possible that passion was running very high between the parties and when the quarrel between the two appellants and the deceased as well as his wife was going on in the courtyard of the house o....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to carefully assess and evaluate witness testimonies, and the extension of the benefit of doubt in case of contradictions and in....
The prosecution must provide consistent and corroborative evidence; significant discrepancies in witness accounts result in reasonable doubt, leading to the reversal of conviction.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
