Patna High Court
Mangroo Yadav,Janardan Yadav,Ramdas ... vs State on 14 August, 2014
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Jitendra Mohan Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.394 of 1991
Against the judgment of conviction dated 12.09.1991 and order of sentence
dated 13.09.1991 passed by Shri Sarju Prasad, Additional District and
Sessions Judge, III, Aurangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 1985/51 of
1991.
===========================================================
1. Mangroo Yadav son of Raghu Nandan Yadav
2. Jadunandan Yadav, son of Parsu Yadav
3. Ram Das Yadav, son of Nawbrat Yadav
4. Ishar Yadav, son of Raghunandan Yadav
5. Ram Nandan Yadav, son of Ishar Yadav
6. Mungeshwar Yadav, son of Deoki Yadav
All residents of village Kunda, Tola Harihar Bigha, Police Station Aurangabad,
District Aurangabad.
.... .... Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 14-08-2014 The present appeal has been filed by the six appellants against judgment of conviction dated 12.09.1991 and order of sentence passed on 13.09.1991 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 1985/51 of 1991, whereby appellant nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been convicted for offences under Sections 147 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `I.P.C.') and sentenced to undergo two years and life imprisonment, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 2/22 respectively, to run concurrently, whereas, appellants no.1 and 2 have been convicted under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years and life imprisonment, respectively, to run concurrently. It may be mentioned that in the trial 20 persons were charged and tried, out of which 14 have been acquitted.
2. We may also, at the very outset, notice that when the appeal was called out, no one appeared for the appellants. The reason was apparent. The appeal was of the year 1991 arising out of an incident that took place in the year 1985. As would appear from the judgment of the trial court, the age of appellant no.1 would now be about 92 years, that of appellant no.2 would now be about 59 years, that of appellant no.3 would now be about 102 years, that of appellant no.4 would now be about 87 years, that of appellant no.5 would now be about 61 years and that of appellant no.6 would now be about 77 years. During the passage of time, some of them might have died and some of them might have moved out. We, therefore, requested Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Advocate to assist us Amicus Curiae in the matter, to which the learned counsel for the State has no objection. We adjourned the matter and, thereafter, have been ably assisted by him and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State. We have heard the matter in detail.
3. Another aspect of the matter, we would like to notice, is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 3/22 about the insensitivity of the trial court. While going through the judgment, we find that the age of one of the accused as shown by the trial court was 16 years. Then we find that not only one but there were other accused persons also, who, on the day one, had petitioned the court that they were minors and had been falsely implicated. One was about 12 years of age in Class VI and the other one was in Class IX. There was yet another accused, who had just been sent up for matriculation examination. Notwithstanding their specific claims at the earliest occasion when the matter was before the Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, no heed was paid and they had to suffer the agony of trial on a capital charge. Fortunately they were all acquitted on merit without consideration of their plea of minority. This is a serious matter and shows the lack of sensitivity on the part of the Judicial Officers. It was no better when the matter came before the Sessions Court. As noticed above, the Sessions Court though noticed the minority but did not give due protection to the minor accused. We say no more.
4. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of one Rampati Yadav (P.W.6) as recorded by S.I. Shiwadhar Ram (P.W.10) at about 1A.M. on 05.03.1985 in village Hariharbigha (Kunda), P.S. Aurangabad Muffasil, District Aurangabad. Rampati Yadav (P.W.6) in his fardbeyan alleges that at about 9P.M. in the night aforesaid i.e. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 4/22 on 04.03.1985, he was having dinner along with his son Ram Pravesh Yadav and village son-in-law Suresh Yadav and was being served food by his wife Rajpatia Devi. They heard gun-shots from the house of the neighbour Mangroo Yadav. Five minutes thereafter, they heard shouts of dacoit-dacoit. Ram Pravesh Yadav (his son) left his food and ran out of the house to see. He was immediately followed by his mother Rajpatia Devi. He then heard the shouts of his son "father I am being killed". Upon hearing this, he and Suresh Yadav came out and saw 20 accused persons variously armed with lathi, garasa and bhala mercilessly assaulting his son and his wife. Mangroo Yadav and Ramdas Yadav were saying `KAT-DO'. After the two fell dead on the ground, they chased the informant and Suresh Yadav to kill them, who ran into the house and locked it from inside. Hearing the commotion and the gun-shots, the Chowkidar of village Kunda, Punit Paswan (P.W.2) came. All the miscreants surrounded the house of the informant, where he and Suresh Yadav were, and kept them confined therein and only when the Police came they were rescued. It is alleged that there had been differences between the two neighbours because of goats, which had resulted in these two gruesome murders.
5. Upon this fardbeyan being recorded, a formal F.I.R. was registered on 05.03.1985 at 5 A.M. as Aurangabad Muffasil P.S. Case No. 65 of 1985. Upon this fardbeyan being recorded by Shiwadhar Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 5/22 Ram, who was Officer-in-charge, he took up investigation. Inquests were prepared of the two dead bodies, which were then sent for post- mortem. Post-mortem reports were received and after investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against all the 20 accused persons and upon cognizance being taken, the case was then committed to the court of session for trial. Charges having been framed, accused persons pleaded not guilty and required to be tried. They were, accordingly, tried and out of them 14 have been acquitted, whereas, six have been convicted, who are the appellants before this Court.
6. In order to establish the prosecution case, the prosecution has, in all, examined 10 witnesses. Two of them i.e. P.W.1 Dasrath Singh and P.W.5 Kaushlendra Kumar Singh are what is known as `Sankat-mochan' witnesses. They are Advocate Clerks, who have been brought to prove official documents like the fardbeyan and the formal F.I.R. They were thoroughly incompetent. We wonder how the court permitted them to be examined. No body or any body can get up to prove any document. Evidence Act clearly lays down how documents have to be proved. The court disregards the Evidence Act and permits any Tom, Dick and Herry to get up and start proving official document. It is wholly unacceptable. However, this need not detain us because it appears that thereafter Investigating Officer, who is the person to have recorded the fardbeyan, whereupon formal F.I.R. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 6/22 was registered, accepts and acknowledges the same and he is P.W.10. That leaves us with 8 other witnesses. Out of these 8 witnesses, P.W.2 is Punit Paswan, who is village Chowkidar, resident of village Kunda and he admits that the village, where he resides, is about a mile away from the present village and across river Adari. As per F.I.R., he is alleged to have heard the shouts from his village Kunda and reached the present village and rescued the informant and Suresh Paswan. In his examination-in-chief, he admits that two inquest reports were prepared on which he had signed as a witness. Thereafter, for post- mortem the bodies were sent to Aurangabad Sadar Hospital. He had accompanied the same. In his cross-examination, he admits that the inquest papers had been prepared by Darogaji in the morning and kept by him, on which he had signed. Curious to note that two inquest reports have not been brought on record. Even though later the Investigating Officer also admits having prepared the same. The prosecution does not explain that.
7. We then have P.W.9 Dr. Nand Kishore Prasad, who conducted post-mortem and prepared the two post-mortem reports. A reference to his evidence and the post-mortem reports would reveal that both the deceased i.e. Ram Pravesh Yadav (son of the informant) and Rajpatia Devi (wife of the informant) have been brutally and mercilessly assaulted. They had multiple injuries on their persons, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 7/22 mostly attributable to hard blunt substance. There were two incised wounds on the neck as well.
8. This leaves us with P.W.10 the Investigating Officer and five other witnesses, who are all family members including the informant. The first would be P.W.3 Suresh Yadav. In his examination-in-chief, he states that while he was having dinner at about 9P.M. in the house of the informant Rampati Yadav, he heard two gun-shots coming from the house of appellant Mangroo Yadav, who is appellant no.1. He then states that hearing this he along with informant and his son Ram Pravesh Yadav left their food and ran out. He then states that he saw the accused persons variously armed, who started assaulting Ram Pravesh Yadav and appellant Mangroo Yadav gave a garasa blow on the neck of Ram Pravesh Yadav. Yadunandan Yadav gave a bhala blow on the right side of his face. Others assaulted him with lathi. When the mother of Ram Pravesh Yadav, Rajpatia Devi tried to intervene, she was also assaulted with garasa, bhala and lathi, as a result of which both of them died there. According to him, it was a bright night and Mangroo Yadav and Mungeshwar Yadav were having torches in their hands, with the help of which they could be identified apart from others. He states that in this village he has his Sasural in the house of Ram Lal Yadav, where he had come two days earlier. In the cross-examination, he admits that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 8/22 his village is about 8 miles from this village. He had come to take his wife from his matrimonial home, but it could not be done and, therefore, for the last two days he was staying in this village itself. He specifically states that he has no relationship with the family of the informant. He had not been staying there. He was invited for dinner in the evening. He admits that Faudari Yadav (another son of the informant) and his wife as well as Ram Pravesh Yadav were at their home. He was given a clear suggestion that in the firing which they had heard, one person was injured. He expressed ignorance. He was given suggestion that a case had been instituted against him for dacoity in relation to the same incident, which he denied having any knowledge. In his cross-examination, he admits that it was Ram Pravesh Yadav, who first ran out after hearing the gun-shots and he later followed him. He admits having made statement to the police and denies that the incident, as narrated by him, had not happened. At this stage, we would notice that this witness was specially questioned about his relationship with the informant and purpose why he was at the house of the informant having dinner in the night. As noticed above, he denied any relationship with the informant and asserts that his Sasural was in the house of Ram Lal Yadav of the same village.
9. This is of great importance because when we come to the informant, we find that he also maintains this. But when we come Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 9/22 to informant's daughter-in-law i.e. P.W. 7 Itwari Devi, upon cross- examination, she not probably but definitely admits that this Suresh Yadav (P.W.3) is the husband of the daughter of the informant. The defence has raised serious question as to what was the necessity to conceal the identity of Suresh Yadav and to deny his relationship with the informant. We will point out this later on in greater details, but suffice it to say that the defence case was that this Suresh Yadav was a person of questionable character and after the dacoity that had been admitted to be committed in the house of Mangroo Yadav, the dacoits killed Ram Pravesh Yadav and his mother Rajpatia Devi while retreating. The villagers made enquiry and found that this witness Suresh Yadav along with 10 unknown persons was seen loitering in the village. He had claimed to be the son-in-law of Ram Lal Yadav. When the villagers were looking for him and having not found him, they came to the Khalihan of Ram Lal Yadav. They chased him. He ran into the house of the informant. They surrounded the house of the informant and kept the inmates of the house including the informant confined, who actually is his father-in-law. Prosecution has deliberately concealed the true relationship and gave false evidence in that regard. They do not explain why this was done. This itself creates serious doubt whether Suresh Yadav was at all present when this incident took place.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 10/22
10. We then have P.W. 4 the son of the informant and brother of the deceased, namely, Faudari Yadav. He is not mentioned in the F.I.R., but he claims that having heard the gun-shot and the shouts of dacoit-dacoit, he along with others, who were having dinner, ran out. In other words, he along with his father, his brother and his mother ran out and he heard his brother Ram Pravesh Yadav shouting that he was being killed. He then gives a graphic detail of all the persons and the weapons held by them as well as the manner of assault. Then he states that when his mother intervened, she was similarly assaulted and killed. He then says that P.W. 3 Suresh Yadav and his father (informant) then ran and hid themselves in the house, whereas, this witness ran out of the village and hid himself. In his cross-examination, he admits that he alone ran out of the village and hid himself. He was being chased by five accused persons, but he managed to escape. He then gave slightly different version of the event that took place in the house before they ran out trying to justify his mother following his brother and his father, Suresh Yadav and himself following latter.
11. We then have P.W.6 (informant), who is father of the deceased Ram Pravesh Yadav and husband of the deceased Rajpatia Devi. He states that while they were being served food by deceased Rajpatia Devi, they heard gun-shots. His son Ram Pravesh Yadav ran Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 11/22 out on hearing the shouts of dacoit-dacoit, who was immediately followed by his wife Rajpatia Devi. He then states that thereafter he and Suresh Yadav also went out to see. Here we would like to notice that in the F.I.R. he accepts that they all went out only after hearing the shouts of his son that he was being killed. In the court, he gives a total go bye to this. He then states that he saw the accused persons, variously armed, brutally assaulting his son and then when his wife went there, she was also assaulted and killed. He states that one Ram Pravesh (acquitted) was wielding a pistol. This time the motive attributed in the examination in chief itself is totally different. He states that in the year previous, his son (deceased) and other persons had stolen the cow-dung cake (used as fuel) belonging to Ram Pravesh (acquitted accused) and it is because of that this incident had taken place, totally forgetting that earlier in the F.I.R. he had given completely a different motive. In his cross-examination, he then says the motive to be stealing of cow-dung cake about 2-3 years earlier, when the age of Ram Pravesh was 10-12 years. We again would like to notice that the post-mortem report discloses the age of Ram Pravesh Yadav as 22 years. Two years back, he could not be 10 or 12 years. In our view, on behalf of the appellants, it is rightly submitted that the prosecution has desperately tried to supply a motive for gruesome event and has miserably failed to substantiate the same. The Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 12/22 reason we would notice at an appropriate stage.
12. He admits in his cross-examination that son of Mangroo Yadav (appellant), namely, Ram Pravesh Yadav, who is also an accused in this case but has been acquitted, had been injured in firing and it is in that connection, Punit Paswan, Chowkidar (P.W.2) had come to the village. It may be noted that the prosecution does not explain how Ram Pravesh Yadav (D.W.10) was injured by gun-shot. He admits that it is the accused persons, who had gone to the Police Station and called the Police. He had not sent any one to inform the Police. This is of some significance. If the accused persons had actually committed crime, why they would have gone to the Police to call him and ensure their implication when the informant and Suresh Yadav were kept confined in their house. In paragraph 10 of his cross-examination, he gives a total different sequence of events. He says that they heard gun-shots. They had finished their dinner. After ten minutes thereafter, Ram Pravesh Yadav (deceased) went out. He and Suresh Yadav, having finished their dinner and washing their hands, went out of the house. He then says that after 5 minutes of hearing the shouts of his son, his mother (deceased) went out. This is totally inconsistent with the story first narrated in the F.I.R. and then through evidence of Suresh Yadav and generally this story is being set up by the prosecution. In paragraph 14, he states that Ram Lal Yadav Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 13/22 is the father-in-law of Suresh Yadav. He states that Suresh Yadav had come to the village on that date though Suresh Yadav admits that he had been in the village for the last two days. He admits that brother- in-law of Suresh Yadav is also one of the accused persons in this case. He states that he had not invited Suresh Yadav for dinner. He denies suggestion that Suresh Yadav was loitering in the village with some unknown persons and he was involved in theft and dacoity. He denies the suggestion that after dacoity in the house of Mangroo Yadav on the said date, villagers went searching for Suresh Yadav and found him hiding at the Kalihan of Ram Lal Yadav, from where he ran and hid in the informant's house. He denied the suggestion that his son and his wife had not been killed by the accused persons, but had been killed by the dacoits. He admits that in recent past there had been several dacoities committed in various houses of the village.
13. From what has been stated as aforesaid, one thing would be clear that here again desperate attempt is being made by the prosecution to conceal relationship of informant with Suresh Yadav. It is surprising that though informant admits that Suresh Yadav was having dinner at his house with him, he had never invited him, but denies relationship with Suresh Yadav. We fail to understand why Suresh Yadav was in the house of the informant for dinner. He does not even know how long Suresh Yadav (P.W.3) had been in the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 14/22 village. Suresh Yadav claims that he had been in the village for over two days, but, according to the informant, he had just arrived in the village. All this creates a great suspicion as to the conduct of Suresh Yadav. Prosecution is trying to hide more than what it is trying to disclose. Prosecution does not explain why upon hearing gun-shots and shouts of dacoit-dacoit, Ram Pravesh Yadav (deceased) would at all go out. Normally people would stay in room, then why would his mother immediately, abandoning serving of food, rush out. Why other three gentlemen i.e. informant, Suresh Yadav and another son of the informant Faudari Yadav remained in the house only to follow latter. Why is the prosecution changing motive from quarrel over goats to quarrel in regard to stealing of cow-dung cake, which is again full of confusion as to when it had happened and as to why they are consciously trying to supply a motive.
14. Then we have P.W.7 Etwari Devi. She is daughter-in- law of the informant (P.W.6) and the wife of Faudari Yadav (P.W.4). She also deposes that having heard the gun-shot, first her brother-in- law went out followed by her mother-in-law and then followed by her father-in-law. She also followed them. It may be pertinent to note that there is no mention about her in the first information report nor is there any mention about her in the deposition of either her husband Faudari Yadav (PW.4) or of the informant i.e. her father-in-law Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 15/22 (P.W.6). She states that having come out she saw that the accused persons were brutally assaulting to kill her brother-in-law and her mother-in-law. She gives a vivid description of the weapons i.e. garasa, lathi and bhala held by the accused persons. She admits in her cross-examination that the Investigating Officer (Darogaji) had arrested and taken Suresh Yadav to the Police Station. She admits that Suresh Yadav used to regularly visit their house as he was the husband of her sister-in-law; meaning thereby that he was son-in-law of the informant. She clearly suggests that Suresh Yadav (P.W.3) is, in fact, the husband of Fuljhari Devi, who is the daughter of her father-in-law Rampati Yadav. She denies even knowing Ram Lal Yadav. Ram Lal Yadav is set up by the informant to be father-in-law of Suresh Yadav. This creates a doubt about the full prosecution story as to why is everybody consciously trying to hide the identify of Suresh Yadav. It appears that initially even the Police had apprehension about him, for this witness admits that the Police had detained Suresh Yadav and taken him to Police Station a fact, which is denied by all.
15. We then have P.W. 8 Sarita Kumari, who is the daughter of the informant, but she was tendered.
16. We then have the last witness P.W. 10 Shiwadhar Ram, who is the Investigating Officer and who had recorded the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 16/22 fardbeyan. He admits of recording fardbeyan and also admits of it being registered as a formal F.I.R. at his Police Station. His objective finding of place of occurrence is then disclosed as being the place between the house of Mangroo Yadav (appellant) and the informant, where he finds a lot of blood. He finds some broken lathi, which he seized. He seized the blood stained mud, but is unable to produce the seizure list. He then admits of having drawn up inquest reports, which are witnessed by Suresh Yadav (P.W.4) and Punit Paswan (P.W.2), but he is unable to produce the same in court. He states that he had sent the two dead bodies for post-mortem. He admits that he had made no entry as to through whom he had sent the dead bodies for post- mortem and how they were sent to Aurangabad. This is pertinent because defence case was, as we would see, that the dead bodies were carried by the accused persons to the Hospital at the instance of the Officer-in-charge, which would not have been the case if they were arrested or had figured as accused in the case at the earliest. He denies that on the night of occurrence he had ever arrested either the informant or Suresh Yadav. This would be of some importance because the daughter-in-law of the informant (P.W.7) had admitted that Suresh Yadav had been arrested by the Officer-in-charge. He admits that earlier a case was instituted being Case No. 64 of 1985 in regard to causing injury, but refuses to acknowledge as to who was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 17/22 injured. As noted above, the injured was one of the accused persons, (D.W.10), who had received bullet injury, which was admitted by the informant as well. The defence in the cross-examination tests the statement of the Investigating Officer contradicting the statements made by P.Ws. 3, 4, 6 and 7 in the court from what they had deposed before the Police in course of investigation. In the end, he denied suggestion that, in fact, F.I.R. and the depositions were recorded much later and not at the time as shown therein. This is all the evidence on behalf of the prosecution.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants appearing as Amicus Curiae points out that a plain understanding and appreciation of evidence as led by the prosecution raises more questions than what is answered. The prosecution admits that there was firing in the house of appellant Mangroo Yadav. There were shouts of dacoit-dacoit. This is what prompted the deceased Ram Pravesh Yadav to go out, but the prosecution does not explain why the mother of Ram Pravesh Yadav would leave serving food to other members of the family including her husband and would run out. This is not because that she ran out after hearing the cry of her son as the prosecution case is that two of them having gone out, they heard sound of Ram Pravesh Yadav that he was being killed and then others went out. This is a very unnatural state of event that elders in the family being present there, youngers Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 18/22 would leave their food and ran out much less when there is firing and shouts of dacoit-dacoit. Even if they would run out, they would run out with some arms, may be even lathi in their hands.
18. Then we have the presence of this dubious character Suresh Yadav. Prosecution has tried to conceal his true identity and the relationship. Informant has blatantly lied about his relationship. Daughter-in-law of the informant admits that, in fact, Suresh Yadav is the son-in-law of the informant being husband of one of his daughters. It is now apparent why prosecution was trying to conceal his identity. Reason is obvious as defence case is that it is Suresh Yadav, who, with some unknown persons, had been loitering in the village and he had been found hiding in the Khalihan of Ram Lal Yadav and upon being chased, he had hid himself in the house of the informant, who happened to be his father-in-law. This is why the villagers surrounded the house of the informant waiting for the Police to come. What is curious is that there is no other independent witness supporting the claim of the informant and his family members.
19. We then come to the defence evidence. Defence has examined ten witnesses. They include three accused persons. Their definite case is that there was an attempted dacoity in the house of appellant Mangroo Yadav, in course of which his son, namely, Ram Pravesh Yadav was also injured by gun-shot. He immediately along Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 19/22 with one Saheb Yadav rushed to the Police Station, from where he was sent to the Doctor. The Doctor examined him and opined that it was a bullet wound and, in fact, surgically removed the bullet from his left hand. This injury report is Ext. `H'. At the Police Station, Saheb Yadav had lodged an information with regard to this attempted dacoity and shooting, though it may be noted that the Police subsequently filed report stating that this was a false plea. Five days after the incident Mangroo Yadav (appellant no.1) had filed a complaint in the court. The delay is also explained that the day after the incident, the courts were closed because of election, which was followed by Holi and it was only thereafter that complaint was filed. In the complaint, sequence of events is clearly given. It is stated that there was an attempted dacoity in the house of Mangroo Yadav. Shots were fired, in which his son was injured. He was sent to the Police Station. The dacoits, while they were retreating, saw Ram Pravesh Yadav (son of the informant) and killed him. His mother also came out, who was also killed. Dacoits escaped. Thereafter, the villagers got together and learnt that Suresh Yadav had been loitering in the village with about 10 unknown persons. They, accordingly, went in search of Suresh Yadav to the Khalihan of Ram Lal Yadav. Suresh Yadav tried to escape, but he was chased. He entered into the house of the informant and bolted it from inside and that is why they had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 20/22 surrounded the house of the informant and kept the inmates confined therein, waiting for the Police to come. It is after the Police came that the house was opened. Initially the Police arrested the informant and Suresh Yadav, but later when false F.I.R. was lodged, they were released and the accused persons were arrested. This is what is sought to be established by the defence.
20. D.W. 1 is an independent witness asserting that there was a dacoity, after which he found two dead bodies. D.W. 2 and D.W.3 are the witnesses, who had come to prove alibi of one of the accused Ram Lakhan Yadav, who had been acquitted. He was a teacher in a Government school in a different village, where he was present having been requisitioned for election duty. Trial court has chosen not to convict him, which only goes to show his false implication. D.W.4 is a police man from the Police Station, who proves the F.I.R. (Ext. `C') as lodged prior to the present case. D.W.2 is an Advocate Clerk, who deposes that he had got the complaint typed on behalf of Mangroo Yadav. D.W.6 is appellant Yadunandan Yadav himself. He wanted to show that he had tried to get the Doctor examined, who had given the injury report, but the Doctor was not available as he was in England. D.W.7 and D.W.8 are Technician and Laboratory Assistants, who were in Aurangabad Sadar Hospital when the said Dr. S. Ahmad was posted there and they were familiar with Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 21/22 his handwriting and they proved injury report. D.W.9 is appellant Mangroo Yadav himself and he gives in detail the sequence of events and states that the informant's son and wife having been killed by the dacoits, they were falsely implicated. D.W.10 is Ram Pravesh Yadav, who was also an accused but has been acquitted. He is the son of appellant Mangroo Yadav and he is the person, who had sustained gun-shot injury in his left palm, where the bullet had been stuck.
21. Thus, seeing the two versions of the events, we find that the prosecution version, as noticed above, is full of doubts. It is not natural. There are too many unexplained events. There being vacillating motive, conscious attempts to conceal identity and relationship of P.W.3 Suresh Yadav with the informant, absence of any independent witness and virtually absence of any motive for this gruesome killing, serious doubts are created about the correctness of the prosecution story. What appears natural is the defence version. However, we are not here trying to travel through the defence evidence, for it is established that the prosecution has to succeed on its own evidence and that way to prove guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. At appropriate stages, we have already noticed various issues of fact, how they are unnatural, how they are unexplained and how one witness wanted to contradict others. This raises enough doubts in our mind as to the correctness of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.394 of 1991 dt.14-08-20 22/22 prosecution story. It raises serious doubt whether the persons, who had been charged, were at all responsible. In such a view of the matter, we cannot hold that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. We are not inclined to uphold the conviction of the appellants.
22. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the trial court and allow this appeal. All the six appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them and they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)
MPS/- (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J)
U T