A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 29-01-2026

Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants; Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the informant; and Mr. A. M. P. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 16.11.2013 and the order of sentence dated 20.11.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura, in Sessions Trial No. 404 of 2010 arising out of G.R. Case No. 1073 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 323, both read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each for the offence under Section 304 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC. They were further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

Prosecution Story:-

3. The substance of the prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR, is as follows:—

According to the informant, Kapildeo Yadav, on 27.11.2008, at about 10:00 A.M., he along with his brothers, namely Kailash Yadav, Maheshwar Yadav, and Dular Yadav, was proceeding to their field for bundling the harvested paddy crop. While they were passing near the house of one Rambriksha Bind, their co-villagers, namely Mishri Yadav (Appellant No.1), Bhusan Yadav, Devendra Yadav, Kalendra Yadav, Indradeo Yadav (Appellant No.4), Dinesh Yadav (Appellant No.2), and Sugul Yadav (Appellant No.3), arrived there, surrounded them, and started abusing and assaulting them. The informant further alleged that during the course of the assault, accused Indradeo Yadav (Appellant No.4) was armed with a spear (bhala), accused Bhusan Yadav with a garasa, accused Mishri Yadav (Appellant No. 1) with an iron rod, accused Devendra Yadav with a tangi, and accused Sugul Yadav (Appellant No.3) was armed with a lathi, while the remaining accused were armed with lathi and danda. All the said weapons were used in assaulting the informant and his brothers. As per the informant, the motive behind the occurrence was a land dispute which had been subsisting between the informant’s side and the accused persons. The informant further stated that as a result of the said assault, his brother Kailash Yadav sustained a serious head injury.

3.1. The informant, Kapildeo Yadav, recorded his fardbeyan at Sadar Hospital, Sheikhpura, on 27.11.2008 at 14:45 hours, describing the aforesaid alleged occurrence. On the basis thereof, Ariyari P.S. Case No. 150 of 2008 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 325, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code . Subsequently, upon the death of the injured Kailash Yadav, Section 302 of the IPC was also added. The formal First Information Report (FIR) thus set the criminal law in motion, and the investigation was taken up.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants and co-accused Bhushan Yadav. However, by the same police report, the co- accused persons, namely Devendra Yadav and Kalendra Yadav, were not sent up for trial, and the investigation was kept pending in respect of certain non-FIR-named accused, namely Ramdeo Manjhi, Surendra Bind, and Rambriksha Bind, in whose case a separate charge-sheet was subsequently filed. On 12.08.2009, the Investigating Officer