Allowed

Sawru Yadav v. State of Bihar

Patna HC8 Sept 2014CR. APP (DB)/250/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four appellants appealed against conviction for murder and unauthorized possession of arms. This Delhi Bench of Patna High Court found the prosecution evidence flawed due to missing post-mortem report, hostile witnesses, and lack of objective findings, holding suspicion insufficient for conviction. Appeals allowed with acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and order of sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of charges. Bail bonds discharged.

Sawru Yadav Vs State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.1992, passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No.89 of 1987.

¶3

Criminal Appeal (DB) No.250 of 1992

¶4

=========================================================== Sawru Yadav, son of Late Bhukhan Yadav, resident of village-Mathia, P.S.Barahmpur, District-Bhojpur. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State of Bihar. .... .... Respondent.

¶5

WITH

¶6

===========================================================

¶7

Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 256 of 1992

¶8

===========================================================

¶9

Rajendra Yadav, son of Lal Bhukhan Yadav.

¶10

Judge Yadav, son of Lal Bhukhan Yadav.

¶11

Satyanarain Yadav, son of Chandrip Yadav.

¶12

All resident of village-Mathia, Brahmapur, District-Bhojpur.

¶13

.... .... Appellants.

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Bihar. .... .... Respondent.

¶16

===========================================================

¶17

Appearance :

¶18

(In CR. APP (DB) No. 250 of 1992) & (In CR. APP (DB) No. 256 of 1992) For the Appellants : M/s Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Yaspal Yadav & Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocates.

¶19

For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.

¶20

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

¶21

And

¶22

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)

¶23

Date: 08-09-2014

¶24

These two appeals have been filed by the four

¶25

appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.1992 passed by the learned 2^nd

¶26

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.250 of 1992 dt.08-09-2014

¶27

- 2 -

¶28

Additional Sessions Judge, Ara convicting the appellants under Section-302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further convicting them with the exception of Satyanarain Yadav under Section-27 of the Arms Act. They have been sentenced to life imprisonment and imprisonment of seven years respectively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We are indeed surprised as to how the learned trial Judge has at all considered convicting the appellants. It may also be noticed that so far as the appellantSawru Yadav is concerned, as per the Court’s own assessment, he would be about 14 years old on the date of occurrence. So far as appellant-Satyanarain Yadav is concerned, he would be 17 years on the date of occurrence and hence both would be juvenile in conflict with law.

¶30

The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant, Sheomuni Singh alias Seomuni Yadav (P.W.8) alleging, inter alia, therein that he along with his brothers were at their boring in their farm at about 7 pm on 25.09.1986. They found the four appellants armed with guns with the exception of Satyanarain Yadav, who was armed with ‘chhura’ in his hand, going from south to north by the ‘Merh’ east adjacent to his

¶31

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.250 of 1992 dt.08-09-2014

¶32

- 3 -

¶33

boring. He became suspicious and rushed to home. The wife of Singhasan Yadav, the deceased, being Gangia Devi (P.W.2), informed him that her husband Singhasan Yadav had not returned from market. They then heard a gun shot. He rushed back to the boring and they tried to look around but could find nothing. They then saw the four appellants returned. They all came to home. In the next morning, they were told that the dead body of Singhasan Yadav was lying outside the village in a paddy field with a bullet injury and stabbing wound. It is further stated that there have been cases as between the appellants and informant and Singhasan Yadav because of which they might have killed Singhasan Yadav. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet. Upon cognizance being taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the appellants, being pleaded not guilty, were tried and sentenced as stated above.

¶34

The first witness we would like to deal is P.W.8-Sheomuni Singh, the informant. In the very first line of his cross-examination he states that he had not seen the appellants carrying any weapon and in last line of his cross-examination he has merely named the appellants on suspicion because of previous differences. He admits that there have been cases between the parties. The prosecution parties have been

¶35

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.250 of 1992 dt.08-09-2014

¶36

¶37

imprisoned consequent to conviction in cases lodged by the appellants. This itself demolishes the entire prosecution case.

¶38

We may mention that out of the 8 prosecution

¶39

witnesses 2 have been declared hostile. None of them even saw the occurrence. All of them accept that there have been serious disputes between the parties leading to criminal and civil cases. The Investigating Officer has not been examined as such we do not have any objective finding of the place of occurrence or the manner in which the appellants were apprehended. It is stated that the deceased was found shot and stabbed which would implicate all the four appellants. But, regrettably, neither the doctor who carried out postmortem nor the postmortem report itself has been brought on record.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellants rightly submits that this shows that prosecution did not want the medical evidence to come on record because that might prejudice their case otherwise there is no explanation why the Investigating Officer and the doctor have not been examined nor the postmortem report has been brought on record.

¶41

Be that as it may, in view of the evidence as noted above, at best, what can be alleged is that there was strong suspicious circumstances as against the appellants but it is well

¶42

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.250 of 1992 dt.08-09-2014

¶43

- 5 -

¶44

known principle in criminal jurisprudence that however strong suspicion may be it cannot take place the proof. If the person is convicted on the basis of proof of circumstances then it should be on the basis of unbroken chain of events which without doubt points to the guilt of the accused and is incompatible to his innocence. This is not one of those cases. Serious enmity between the parties is writ large.

¶45

In such circumstances, it cannot be held that

¶46

the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we have no option but to allow both these appeals and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are discharged from liabilities of their bail bonds.

¶47

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)

¶48

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.)

¶49

Trivedi/NAFR

¶50

U T

Sawru Yadav v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sawru Yadav v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunandan Yadav Vs State of Bihar

Sunaina Yadav @ Sunil Yadav and Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Raj Kumar Mishra Vs State

Baleshwar Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Bhajan Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar

Lal Bahadur Sah Vs State