Patna High Court
State Of Bihar vs Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors on 7 August, 2014
Author: Amaresh Kumar Lal
Bench: Amaresh Kumar Lal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Govt. Appeal (DB) No.24 of 1992
===========================================================
The State of Bihar
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Ashok Kumar Yadav, son of Arjun Yadav.
2. Arjun Yadav, son of Late Bishu Yadav.
3. Ramchandra Yadav, son of late Bishu Yadav @ Ram Lakhan Yadav.
4. Naeshwar Yadav, son of late Bhadai Yadav @ Nago Yadav.
5. Ganesh Yadav, son of Late Bhadai Yadav.
6. Ajab Lal Yadav, son of Late Bhadai Yadav.
7. Bal Kumar Yadav, son of late Bhadai Yadav.
8. Parish Yadav, son of late Jai Lal Yadav.
(All are residents of village- Kharui, P.S.-Sangrampur, District- Munger)
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Shri Abhimanyu Sharma, A.P.P.
For the Respondent/s : None.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA
and
HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA) Date: 07-08-2014 This Government Appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dated 27.04.1992 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No.568 of 1989/35 of 1984 by which the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them under Sections 148, 302, 302/34, 307/149, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. The prosecution case is contained in the written report (Ext.1) filed by Chaturi Yadav (not examined), in which he Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.24 of 1992 dt.07-08-2014 2/7 had stated that he was informed by P.W.10 Mohan Yadav and P.W.8 Budhan Yadav that while they were standing near a Jhopri on a particular land, a mob of accused persons armed variously and shouting 'kill them, kill them' was seen coming towards them. It was stated that they came and started dismantling the Jhopri, which was situated on that particular piece of land. While so doing, one of them, i.e., Ramchandra Yadav @ Ram Lakhan Yadav, respondent no.3, had fired a shot at deceased Uchit Yadav. Both P.Ws. 8 and 10 stated to the informant that they started running and they were also fired at and they received gun shot injuries while coming to the Darwaja of Chaturi Yadav, the informant. The accused persons chased the two witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 8 and 10 and while passing by the road in front of the Darwaja of the informant Chaturi Yadav, they fired shots without targeting any one and it so happened that Ranjana Kumari, P.W.2, who came out of the house was hit by the gun shot and was badly injured. The respondents were identified in the mob alongwith one Krityanand Yadav, who was also put on trial, but who has not been added as respondent in the present appeal.
3. On the basis of Exhibit-1, the First Information Report (Ext.3) of the case was drawn up by P.W.12, Sub Inspector of Police, Praful Chandra Jha who was the officer-in-charge of the police station and he himself took up the investigation. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.24 of 1992 dt.07-08-2014 3/7 As may appear from the evidence of P.W.12, Sub Inspector of Police Praful Chandra Jha, he did not find any stain of blood or any mark of violence or any signs of dismantling any Jhopri, as the same was found intact standing at the place of occurrence. He, in fact, had not treated the particular place where the Jhopri was standing as the place of occurrence as the prosecution did not show that place to him as the place where deceased Uchit Yadav was shot and killed by the respondent no.3, Ramchandra Yadav @ Ram Lakhan Yadav. What appears from his evidence was that he was taken to the house of the informant Chaturi Yadav and he was shown the walls of that house in order to be pointed out that pellet marks were there in the wall of the mud built house. What we find in the cross-examination evidence of P.W.12 was that in fact he found some clusters of holes in the mud wall of the house, but he could not locate or extricate a single pellet out of any of these holes. Thus, the Investigating Officer also found it doubtful that any shot had been fired towards the house of the informant Chaturi Yadav. In spite of that he submitted charge-sheet sending up the eight respondents and accused Krityanand Yadav for being tried in the case and accordingly, the trial ended in their acquittal.
4. What appears from the evidence of P.W.10 Mohan Yadav, who was one of the eye witnesses, was that there was some Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.24 of 1992 dt.07-08-2014 4/7 dispute for about 5 Kathas of land. An area of more than 3 Kathas was in possession of P.W.10, whereas an area of 1-1/4th Kathas appears purchased by the accused persons. The witness, P.W.10 had claimed as if he had shifted his residence into the Jhopri with some belongings of his and the accused persons probably to dislodge him from his possession, had come heavily armed to dismantle the Jhopri and to snatch the possession from him.
5. However, what we have already noted is that P.W.12 Praful Chandra Jha did not find any Jhopri standing there dismantled. The learned trial Judge, as such, appears perfectly justified in holding that the genesis of the occurrence appears not established. Indeed, P.W.12 had not found any signs of violence so as to indicating that any one could have attempted to demolish or dismantle the Jhopri.
6. Three witnesses came to support the prosecution story. P.W.10 Mohan Yadav, who had initially seen the occurrence with P.W.8 Budhan Yadav, who was one of such witnesses. The other was P.W.5 Jaldhar Yadav and the third was P.W.3 Sukhdeo Yadav. But, what appears from their evidence is that they themselves had also not pointed out the place where Uchit Yadav had been murdered and they could not satisfy the learned trial Judge's conscience as regards the genesis of the occurrence, i.e., the demolition of the Jhopri. In fact, the evidence of P.W.12 S.I., Praful Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.24 of 1992 dt.07-08-2014 5/7 Chandra Jha was disproving the prosecution story as regards the demolition of the Jhopri by the accused. Not only that when he came to the description of the Jhopri, which was destroyed, it was also varying from witness to witness as regards the deposition of the three witnesses noted above. Three witnesses gave three different dimensions as regards the length and width of the Jhopri. The Investigating Officer, we repeat, did not only find the Jhopri demolished, rather he did not find any attempt to demolish it. He also did not find any mark of violence, like, bloodstains or any empty cartridge at the place where the Jhopri was standing and where Uchit Yadav was allegedly shot dead by the accused persons. Not only that, it appears that Uchit Yadav had been murdered on the same day at a different place and the witnesses, who had come to lodge the report or to depose in the court, had themselves been made accused in the counter version of the incident. This was the reason that they had belatedly filed the report so as to create the counter version of the incident in order to digressing the investigation of the case.
7. The above findings of the learned trial Judge appeared more prominent when he was discussing the evidence of P.W.2 Ranjana Kumari, vis-a vis, that of other witnesses. Ranjana Kumari had stated that on hearing some Hulla, she rushed out of her house and was immediately hit by gun shot. There were some Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.24 of 1992 dt.07-08-2014 6/7 injuries on her, but the distance from which she was fired at has been stated as diversely as may appear from the evidence of P.W.2 Ranjana Kumari, who stated that the distance between the assailant, who fired at her was about 40-50 cubits from her, which if converted into feet would come to 75 feet. P.W.5 Jaldhar Yadav, on the other hand, stated in paragraph 16 that Ranjana Kumari was at a distance of 300 yards from the accused who had fired at her. As against the above two witnesses, P.W.10 had stated in paragraph 10 that the shot, which hit Ranjana Kumari was fired from a distance of 10 cubits, i.e., from about 30 feet. Thus, what appears is that there was quite some variance in the evidence of witnesses as regards the distance from which the accused had fired at Ranjana Kumari. Not only that as regards the injury on Ranjana Kumari, it was doubtful that she had been hit on 15.08.1981 at 6.00 A.M. because the doctor's opinion regarding the nature of the injury and the time when it had been caused to P.W.2 raised the probability as if it could have been caused on 15.08.1981 sometimes around 8.00 A.M. The reason which was given by the learned trial Judge for raising that inference was that abrasion generally start healing up within a few hours of appearing on the human body and scabbing occurs over the abrasion within 24 hours. The doctor, who had examined the P.W.2, opined that injury had been caused within 24 hours, but he had stated that he did not find any scabbing over the wounds of Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.24 of 1992 dt.07-08-2014 7/7 P.W.2.
8. So far as the claim of P.W.10 Mohan Yadav of being hit by pellets with P.W.8 Budhan Yadav is concerned, the doctor who had examined them did not find any injury either on Mohan Yadav or Budhan Yadav. In fact, Budhan Yadav was produced in court as P.W.8, but it appears that he was not in a position to depose in court.
9. We find, after having gone through the evidence of the witnesses as also the judgment rendered by the learned trial Judge, that the learned trial Judge had considered the evidence of the witnesses with quite care and caution and had raised the inference, which naturally appears arising therefrom and as such, the judgment impugned herein does not appear suffering from any perversity.
10. In the result, the Government Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
(Dharnidhar Jha, J)
(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)
V.K. Pandey/ Pawan
U T