Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
Kamta Yadav & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2009
Decided On : 06-10-2016
Facts of Case:
Murder case. Five appellants who were tried for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and convicted by trial court, have approached High Court after their conviction was upheld by High Court as well. During the pendency of this appeal, one of accused persons expired and appeal qua him stood abated. Validity of judgment of High Court in respect of remaining four appellants is the subject matter of this appeal.
Findings of Court:
It is nowhere stated that those who were eye witnesses to incident had seen occurrence from a distance of 300 sq. yds. When confronted with this position, learned counsel accepted inaccuracy of his argument.
It was further argued that no independent witnesses were examined in present case. However, in cross-examination or otherwise it has not even been brought out by defence that there were other persons at the scene of occurrence who were independent persons. Learned counsel also could not point out as to how, in these circumstances, non-examination of independent persons acted to prejudice of the appellants.
Only requirement, while scrutinizing interested witnesses is to examine their depositions with greater caution and deeper scrutiny is needed which exercise has been done by both courts below.
Result – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Sikri, J.
Five appellants, who were tried for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted by the trial court, have approached this Court after their conviction was upheld by the High Court as well vide impugned judgment dated September 28, 2007. During the pendency of this appeal, one of the accused persons, namely Hiralal Yadav, expired and the appeal qua him stood abated. The validity of the judgment of the High Court in respect of the remaining four appellants is the subject matter of this appeal.
2. To trace out the prosecution case in brief, it may be mentioned that on November 16, 1991, at about 9:00 am, Ajodhaya Yadav, armed with a lathi, and other four appellants armed with bhala, were ploughing a field belonging to the informant while Kashinath Yadav exhorted others to kill the informant Ramji Yadav. Hiralal Yadav caused a bleeding injury on the head of the informant with a bhala. The informant in order to save his life shouted on which his uncle Ramayan Yadav (deceased), his father Dharichhan Yadav (PW-1) and his brother Bir Bahadur Yadav (PW-3), came in order to save him. Hiralal Yadav then caused a bhala injury on the chest and abdomen of the deceased who fell down and became unconscious. PW-1 also fell down as he was assaulted with bhala by Kashinath Yadav and Kamta Yadav causing injuries on his abdomen, back of the body and hand. PW-3 was also assaulted by Ajodhaya Yadav with lathi and also by Bhim Yadav with bhala on head causing bleeding injury. On the shouts raised by the informant and his party, Dudhnath Yadav (PW-2) and Jagdish Yadav came and saved them. Other persons from the village also came and thereafter the accused persons stopped assaulting and fled away. The reason for the occurrence was said to be a dispute over the land and litigation in the past which had resulted in filing of a court case also.
3. First Information Report (FIR) was registered after recording fardbayan (Exhibit-4) and this FIR was proved during trial as Exhibit-5. This FIR shows that the police station was situated very close to the place of occurrence, i.e. about 300 yards on the west. It further shows that formally Section 302 was not added by the Investigating Officer (PW-9). By way of correction in the FIR, this provision was added after obtaining permission for the same from the Court of the Magistrate on November 16, 1991 itself by informing that uncle of the informant, i.e. Ramayan Yadav, died on way to Bihia Hospital. The Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence; prepared Inquest Report (Exhibit-3); sent the body for postmortem examination and obtained postmortem report; recorded the statement of witnesses, including further statement of the informant; and submitted charge-sheet for the offence under Section 302 and other provisions of the IPC. After taking cognizance, the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed for various offences, including Section 302 IPC. The appellants pleaded 'Not Guilty' to the charges. After the trial, accused persons were found guilty by the trial court for offence under Section 302 IPC and were awarded imprisonment for life.
4. The judgments of the Courts below reflect that the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined nine witnesses. PW-1, Dharichhan Yadav, is the father of the informant. He also sustained injuries and claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence, as mentioned in the FIR itself. He has fully supported the prosecution case. PW-2, Dudhnath Yadav, is the brother of PW-1, who came on the shouts raised, and has claimed to have seen the occurrence. PW-3, Bir Bahadur Yadav, is the son of the deceased Ramayan Yadav. Like PW-1, he is also an injured eye witness to the incident. He has fully supported the prosecution case. Sonia Devi (PW-4) and Munesari Devi (PW-5) are mother and wife respectively of the informant. PW-4 has claimed to have gone to the place of occurrenc
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
