[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Brahmdeo @ Brahmadeo Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 16 May, 2025
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1289 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2015 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Brahmdeo @ Brahmadeo Yadav S/o Late Mahabir Yadav, R/o Village-
Bhagalpur, District- Supaul.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1282 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2015 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
1. Sudhu Yadav Son of Late Mahabir Yadav Resident of village - Bhagwatpur,
P.S. - Chhatapur, Distt. - Supaul
2. Awadhesh @ Awdhesh Yadav Son of Brahmadeo Yadav Resident of village -
Bhagwatpur, P.S. - Chhatapur, Distt. - Supaul
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1289 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sanjay Singh, Senior Advocate
Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Rudrank Shivam Singh, Advocate
Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms.Shashi Bala Verma, APP
For the Informant : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Giri, Adv.
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1282 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sanjay Singh, Senior Advocate
Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocate
Mr.Rudrank Shivam Singh, Advocate
Mr.Vinod Kumar, Advocate
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
2/65
For the State : Ms.Shashi Bala Verma, APP
For the Informant : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Giri, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 16-05-2025
1. The aforesaid appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
the "Cr.P.C.") arise out of the same judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 06.09.2017 and 08.09.2017 respectively,
passed in Sessions Trial No.100 of 2016 (arising out of
Chhatapur P.S. Case No.92 of 2015), by the learned Presiding
Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Supaul (hereinafter referred to as
the "Ld. Trial Judge"), hence these appeals have been heard
together and are being disposed off by the present common
judgment and order. By the said judgment dated 06.09.2017, the
learned Trial Judge has convicted the aforesaid appellants of
both the cases for commission of offence under Sections 452
and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as
the "I.P.C."). By the order of sentence dated 08.09.2017,the
appellants have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the IPC with fine
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
3/65
of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof, the appellants have
been directed to undergo further 6 months Rigorous
Imprisonment. The aforesaid appellants have also been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Sections 452/34
of the I.P.C. Both the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
2. The short facts of the case are that on 02.05.2015, a
written report was submitted by SachendraYadav (P.W.6), who
is the son of the deceased Jagdeo Yadav. In the said written
report, Sachendra Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the
"informant") has stated that on 02.05.2015, he was sleeping in
his house and in the meanwhile at about 1:30 a.m., he heard his
father shouting at the door of his house, whereafter he had gone
to the door of his house and then he saw that Bramhdeo Yadav
(appellant of the first case) was holding a kudaal (hoe) in his
hand and was assaulting his father on his head by the said
kudaal (hoe), leading to his head being cut off and then blood
started oozing out and he became unconscious. Upon seeing the
said incident, the informant had raised hulla (alarm) and had
gone to his father's aid to save him, where he found that Naresh
Yadav, Awadhesh Yadav (appellant no.2 of the second case),
Rajesh Yadav, Kishundeo Yadav (one of the convicts who has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
4/65
died during the pendency of the present Appeal), Dhawal Yadav,
Sudhu Yadav (appellant no.1 of the second case) and Rikesh
Yadav were also standing there armed with lathi, farsa, sword
and kudaal (hoe), who all had then surrounded the informant
whereafter, Bramhdeo Yadav exhorted the other accused persons
and said that the root cause of dispute is father and son and
since father has already been cut by kudaal (hoe), the son is now
to be killed, whereupon all the aforesaid accused persons caught
hold of the informant and started assaulting him
indiscriminately with lathi and danda. It is also stated by the
informant that thereafter, Awadhesh Yadav (appellant no.2 of the
second case), who was holding farsa in his hand had given
farsa blow on the right leg of the informant, leading to his leg
being cut. The informant has next stated that on account of
assault by lathi, he had received injuries on his back and
shoulder. The informant has stated in his written report that
during the course of the said incident, three unknown persons,
whom he does not recognize, had entered inside his house and
picked up 3 boxes and taken them away, which contained
documents pertaining to 19 bighas land apart from containing
clothes, jewellery worth Rs.36,000/- and cash amount totalling
to a sum of Rs.20,000/-. After the informant had raised alarm,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
5/65
his elder brother Gajendra Yadav (P.W.1), younger brother
Sanjay Yadav (P.W. 2) and his sister-in-law as also his mother
had arrived there and recognized the accused persons. After
hearing hulla (alarm) the people from nearby neighbourhood
had arrived there, whereupon the accused persons fled away.
The informant has further stated that with the help of the co-
villagers and family members, his injured father was taken to
Primary Health Centre at Chhatapur, where the Doctor had
given preliminary treatment and then he was referred, since his
condition was not good, whereupon he was taken to Neuro-
Cardio Hospital at Biratnagar, where the doctor declared him to
be dead. Thereafter, the informant came along with his dead
father to Chhatapur. Lastly, he has stated that the motive of the
aforesaid incident is pre-existing land dispute with Bramhdeo
Yadav (appellant of the first case). The aforesaid written report
was scribed by one Satyanarayan Yadav, who is resident of
Village-Bhatni Kumarkhand.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report submitted by
the informant, a formal FIR bearing Chhatapur PS Case No.92
of 2015 was registered on 02.05.2015 at 8:50 a.m. under
Sections 302/452/380/34 of the I.P.C against Bramhdeo Yadav
(appellant of the first case), Naresh Yadav, Awadhesh Yadav
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
6/65
(appellant no.2 of the second case), Rajesh Yadav, Dhawal
Yadav, Kishundeo Yadav (dead), Rikesh Yadav, Sudhu Yadav
(appellant no.1 of the second case) and three unknown persons.
After investigation and finding the case to be true qua the
accused Bramhdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case) and Sudhu
Yadav (appellant no.1 of the second case), chargesheet was
submitted against them on 31.07.2015 under Sections
302/452/380/34
of the I.P.C. Thereafter, the Police has
submitted chargesheet on 26.10.2015 under Sections
302/452/380/34 of the I.P.C. against Awadhesh Yadav (appellant
no.2 of the second case) and Kishundeo Yadav (dead). The Ld.
Trial Court had then taken cognizance of the offence under
Sections 302/452/380/34 of the I.P.C on 16.10.2015 against the
aforesaid appellants and the deceased Kishundeo Yadav. The
case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 19.04.2016 and
numbered as Sessions Trial No.100 of 2016. On 27.06.2016,
charges were framed against the appellants under Sections
302/34, 452/34 and 380/34 of the I.P.C.
4. During the course of trial, 10 witnesses were examined by
the prosecution. P.W.1 Gajendra Yadav and P.W.6 Sachindra
Yadav (informant) are stated to be eye witnesses to the alleged
occurrence. P.W. 2 Sanjay Yadav, P.W.3 Meeno Devi and P.W.5
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
7/65
Nutan Devi are stated to have witnessed the incident partly.
P.W.4 Deepo Devi is a hearsay witness. P.W.7 Dr. Kanhaiya
Prasad Singh had conducted post-mortem examination of the
dead body of the deceased Jagdeo Yadav, while P.W.9 Dr. Lalan
Kumar Thakur had prepared the injury Report of P.W.6
Sachendra Yadav (informant). P.W.8 Gyan Prakash Srivastav
was the Officer-in-Charge of Chhatapur Police Station on
18.07.2015, while P.W.10 Chandrakant Gauri is stated to be
Officer-in-Charge, posted at the Chhatpur Police Station on the
date of incident i.e. 02.05.2015.
5. The learned senior counsel for the appellants Shri Sanjay
Singh, by referring to the entire evidence and the materials on
record has argued that the prosecution has not proved the case
beyond all reasonable doubt, hence the Ld. Trial Judge has
incorrectly passed the judgment of conviction under challenge.
It has been firstly argued that the prosecution has failed to prove
the motive behind the alleged occurrence, more particularly that
the same was/is a pre-existing land dispute in between the
parties. In this connection, it has been submitted that in the FIR,
the informant has stated that because of land dispute with
Bramhdeo Yadav, the present incident had taken place, whereas
it has been pointed out that P.W.1 Gajendra Yadav (brother of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
8/65
the informant) has stated in his evidence that no muslim resides
at the ridge of his land, no dispute is existing with Bhuto and
Anis. This witness has also stated in paragraph no.6 of his
examination-in-chief that he was having no dispute with
Mahavir Yadav (father of Bramhdeo Yadav). The learned senior
counsel has also referred to the evidence of P.W. 2 Sanjay Yadav
(brother of the informant) to submit that he has stated in his
examination-in-chief that he does not know Bhuto and Anis and
that he is not having any land related dispute with them,
however he has stated that his father is having land dispute with
Bramhdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case)from before. The
learned senior counsel has also submitted by referring to
paragraph no.9 of the evidence of P.W. 2 that it has been stated
that Panchayati was held with regard to the disputed land in
question and document was also prepared, which was kept in
the box and was stolen by three unknown persons at the time of
the aforesaid incident. At this juncture, it has been submitted by
the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the offence
under Section 380 has not stood proved, thus the story of three
boxes having been stolen by three unknown persons also does
not stand proved. Thus, it is contended that such a plea has been
raised to give an impression that the documents relating to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
9/65
Panchayati have been stolen so that they are not asked to
produce the same by way of evidence in order to prove that the
land in question was a disputed land and there was pre-existing
land dispute in between the parties.
6. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has also
submitted that there is nothing on record to show that dispute
was existing with Bramhdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case)
with regard to one bigha land, in connection with which
Panchayati had taken place. The learned senior counsel for the
appellants has next referred to the evidence of P.W.3 Minoo
Devi to submit that she has stated in her evidence that land
dispute was existing. Reference has been next made to the
evidence of P.W.4 to submit that she has also stated in her
evidence that land dispute was going on since one year. The
land belongs to her husband which is khatiyani in nature and
Panchayati had also been held with regard to the said land. It
has also been stated that P.W.4 has stated in paragraph no.17 of
her cross examination that after the accused persons had
engaged in obstructing the land in question, a case was filed,
however except the dispute regarding the said land, there is no
other dispute prevailing vis-a-vis the accused persons and only
because of the land dispute in question, the accused persons
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
10/65
have been falsely implicated in the present case. Thus, it is the
submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that
the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for giving effect
to the alleged occurrence.
7. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has further
submitted that at best, P.W.1 Gajendra Yadav and P.W.6
Sachendra Yadav (informant) can be stated to be eye witnesses
of the actual assault. As far as P.W.1 is concerned, he is stated to
have seen Bramhdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case) cutting
the head of his father by kudaal (hoe). P.W.1 has also stated that
Bramhdeo Yadav was saying that the root cause of the dispute is
father and son and since father has already been killed, only son
is left, hence assault him. P.W.1 has also stated in paragraph
no.15 of his evidence that the night was moonlit and after he
had raised an alarm, people from the neighbouring houses had
arrived after 10 minutes and till the time the co-villagers
arrived, he had continued raising alarm and when the co-
villagers came, he became unconscious and remained such for
10 minutes but he again stated that he was unconscious for 1
hour. P.W.1 had denied the suggestion that they were having
land related dispute with muslim people and that they had killed
his father. It is thus submitted that the evidence of P.W.1
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
11/65
Gajendra Yadav does not inspire much confidence.
8. It is next contended by the learned senior counsel for the
appellants by referring to the evidence of P.W.6 (informant) that
he has stated in his evidence that when he opened the door of
his house he saw that Bramhdeo Yadav (appellant of the first
case) was standing with kudaal (hoe) in his hand and the other
accused persons had caught hold of his father and had climbed
up, whereafter he had tried to catch hold of Bramhdeo Yadav
but in the meantime, Bramhdeo Yadav (appellant of the first
case) had assaulted his father on his head by Kudaal (hoe),
leading to his head being cut and then blood started oozing out.
It is stated that in the FIR, the informant has not stated that the
accused persons had caught hold of his father. It has also been
pointed out that P.W.6 has also stated that land dispute in
between the father of the informant and Bramhdeo Yadav
(appellant of the first case) was going on since one month and
they had also filed a case under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. P.W.6
has also stated that his father had told him that he had purchased
the land from one Kurban in the year, 1965 and the same was
not given to Bramhdeo Yadav. Thus, the learned senior counsel
for the appellants has submitted that the evidence of P.W.6 also
does not inspire much confidence. Attention has also been
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
12/65
drawn to the evidence of P.W.6, wherein he has stated that after
he raised alarm, his elder brother Gajendra Yadav (P.W.1),
younger brother Sanjay Yadav (P.W. 2), sister-in-law Minoo
Devi (P.W.3) and mother Deepo Devi (P.W.4) as also Urmila
Devi had arrived there, whereafter, Awdhesh Yadav (appellant
no.2 of the second case), had hit P.W.6 by farsa on his right leg,
resulting in him sustaining cut injury and then he was assaulted
by balam and his leg was destroyed, whereupon P.W.6 had
fallen down and had become unconscious and he along with his
father was taken to the hospital at Chhatapur, where treatment of
his father was also done, however he was referred to Biratnagar
where the Doctor declared him to be dead. P.W.6 has also stated
that he regained consciousness at Chhatapur at about 10 a.m.
Thus, it is submitted that the testimony of P.W.6 is also not
trustworthy.
9. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has further
submitted that as far as P.W.2 (Sanjay Kumar), P.W.3 (Meeno
Devi), P.W.4 (Deepo Devi) and P.W.5 (Nutan Devi) are
concerned, they are not eye witness to the assault made upon the
deceased. In fact, it has also been argued that if the version as
narrated in the FIR by P.W.6 is compared with his evidence, the
factum of him being an eye witness also becomes doubtful. It is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
13/65
also contended that the assault with balam by Awadhesh Yadav
(appellant no.2 of the second case), is not supported by medical
evidence inasmuch as the Doctor P.W.9 has found the injuries
sustained by the informant to be simple in nature.
10. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has next
submitted that the actual time and place of occurrence is also
doubtful inasmuch as P.W.6 has stated in his evidence that after
he was assaulted by Awadhesh Yadav (appellant no.2 of the
second case), he fell down and became unconscious, whereafter
he had regained consciousness at Chhatapur at 10 a.m., hence
submission of written report by P.W.6 before the police at 8 a.m.
becomes doubtful. Reference has been next made to the
evidence of the Doctor (P.W.7), who has conducted post-mortem
of the dead body of the deceased to submit that in the post-
mortem report, the measurement of the injuries have not been
mentioned. It has also been submitted that the doctor has not
found any fracture on the skull, hence the injuries sustained by
the deceased could not have been inflicted by means of kudaal
(hoe). The Doctor has found incised and lacerated injuries on
the skull bone of the deceased, which cannot be related to injury
inflicted by a kudaal (hoe), hence in all probability the deceased
had fallen by himself and in the process had got injured. The Ld.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
14/65
senior counsel for the appellants has next stated that no
independent witness has been brought forward by the
prosecution to support their case, hence apparently, since all the
witnesses are closely related to each other as also to the
deceased, a false and fabricated case has been set up. It is next
submitted that the kudaal (hoe) has not been recovered, hence in
absence of recovery of the weapon used for killing the deceased,
the conviction of the appellants by the Ld. Trial Judge is not
appropriate. It is submitted that the means of the light in which
the accused persons were identified is also not proved by the
witnesses.
11. It has been alternatively argued by the learned Senior
counsel for the appellants, that since the prosecution has
completely failed to show any intention or motive for causing
death of the deceased and since the attending circumstances
show that only single blow was inflicted upon the deceased, the
present case would not fall within the purview of Section 302 of
the I.P.C., rather it could at best attract the provision of Section
304 Part II of the I.P.C., in absence of any intention to cause the
death of the deceased.
12. The learned counsel for the informant Shri Jitendra Kumar
Giri has submitted that the evidence of all the witnesses are
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
15/65
consistent and the defence has not been able to bring out any
contradictions in their statements, hence they cannot be said to
be untrustworthy. The evidence of all the prosecution witnesses
would demonstrate that the motive is clearly pre-existing land
dispute in between the parties. It has also been explained that
there was no possibility of presence of independent witness
because firstly, the incident took place in the dead of the night at
about 1:30 a.m. and secondly, the same took place inside the
house of the deceased. Lastly, it is submitted that there may be
minor contradictions, nonetheless all the witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution, which goes to prove the
guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. It is also
submitted that P.W.6 (informant) is an injured witness and under
the law, the injured witness has a special status and it is
expected that he would not wrongly narrate the incident.
13. The learned APP for the State Ms. Shashi Bala Verma has
submitted that all the accused persons belongs to one family and
admittedly there is a pre-existing land dispute which has also
been substantiated by the evidence of the prosecution witness. It
is submitted that a bare perusal of the evidence of the witnesses,
especially P.W.1 would show that it has been categorically
stated that no dispute is existing with Bhuto or Anis and that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
16/65
land related dispute is existing only with Bramhdeo Yadav
(appellant of the first case). It is also submitted by referring to
the testimony of P.W.1 that he has stated in his evidence that
Bramhdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case) was exhorting the
other accused persons by saying that the father and son are the
root cause for the dispute, hence they should be killed. As far as
P.W. 2 is concerned, it is submitted by the Ld. APP for the State
that though he had seen Awadhesh Yadav (appellant no.2 of the
second case), assaulting the informant but he had also seen
Bramhdeo Yadav (appellant in the first case) holding kudaal
(hoe) stained with blood inasmuch as he had already assaulted
the deceased by kudaal (hoe), leading to the deceased being
injured badly, resulting in blood oozing from his wounds. It is
also submitted that even P.W. 2 has admitted in his evidence that
he was not having any dispute with either Bhuto or Anis and
infact dispute of the father of P.W.6 was existing with the
appellant Bramhdeo Yadav and with regard to the same
Panchayati was held as far as one bigha land is concerned,
whereafter the Panches had told him to leave the land but the
accused persons had not vacated the land. Thus, it is submitted
that there is a clear motive behind the incident i.e. a pre-existing
land dispute in between the parties.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
17/65
14. It is next submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that even
P.W.3 has admitted in her evidence that the accused persons
were carrying weapons, which were used for assaulting the
deceased and the informant. It is also submitted that P.W.6 has
narrated the incident vividly and has stated that when he opened
the door of his house, he saw Bramhdeo Yadav (appellant of the
first case) holding a kudaal (hoe), by which he had assaulted his
father on his head, resulting in him sustaining cut injury and
then blood started oozing out. He has also stated about the other
accused persons catching hold of his father. P.W.6 has also
stated that Bramhdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case) had told
his accomplice that he had already killed the father, hence now
the son should be assaulted. Thus, it is submitted by the Ld. APP
for the State that ample evidence is available on record to show
the complicity of the appellants in the alleged occurrence and it
cannot be said that the Ld. Trial Judge has committed error in
convicting the appellants for the offences alleged. The Ld. APP
for the State has next referred to the injury report prepared by
Dr. Lalan Kumar Thakur (P.W.9), who was posted as a Doctor at
Primary Health Hospital, Chhatapur on the alleged date of
occurrence and the injury report of the injured witness, namely
Sachendra Yadav (P.W.6) i.e. the informant was prepared by
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
18/65
him. By referring to the said injury report (Exhibit-3), the Ld.
APP for the State has submitted that the same would bear it out
that Dr. L K Thakur had examined the appellant on 02.05.2015
at 03:30 a.m., hence the contention of the appellants to the effect
that the evidence of P.W.6 shows that he had become
unconscious upon being assaulted and had regained
consciousness at Chhatapur at 10 a.m. does not seem to be
probable. It is next contended that there is no variance in
between the ocular and medical evidence, hence the mode and
manner in which the deceased had sustained injuries stands
explained.
15. Besides hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we
have minutely perused both the evidence i.e. oral and
documentary. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to
cursorily discuss the evidence.
16. P.W.1 Gajendra Yadav is the brother of the informant and
son of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that the
incident dates back to 02.05.2015 at about 1:30 a.m. in the night
when he was sleeping in the room of his house and then he
heard his father and brother Sachendra Yadav (P.W.6) shouting,
whereafter he ran and went to the door of his house and saw that
Bramhdeo Yadav has cut the head of his father by kudaal (hoe).
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
19/65
He has stated that his brother Sachendra Yadav was also
assaulted. Awadhesh Yadav had given a farsa blow on the right
leg of Sachendra Yadav, leading to his brother becoming
unconscious. He has stated that eight accused persons named in
the FIR were present at the place of occurrence. P.W.1 has next
stated that Bramhdeo Yadav said that the root cause of the
dispute is father and son and since the father has already been
killed, the son be also assaulted. He has further stated that his
brother Sanjay Yadav, sister-in-law and mother had then arrived
there and all of them had raised an alarm, whereafter the co-
villagers had arrived but the accused persons had fled away by
then. He has stated that his father was taken to the health centre
at Chhatapur from where he was referred to Biratnagar and upon
reaching there, he was declared dead. He has also stated that he
had then brought back his father from Biratnagar and post-
mortem was held at Supaul. He has next stated that there is pre-
existing land dispute. He has recognized the accused persons
standing in the dock. In cross examination, P.W.1 has stated that
he knows Anis and Bhuto Khan of his village. He has stated that
he has got 20-21 bighas of land situated at Bhagwatpur Mauza.
P.W.1 has next stated that on the ditch adjacent to his land, no
muslim person is present and he never had any dispute with
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
20/65
Bhuto.
17. P.W.1 has next stated that Bhuto and Anis used to tell
him since five years that he should take the land which they
have given and leave the rest of the land and they used to
cultivate the said 2 bigha land on their own. P.W.1 has also
stated that they had no dispute with Mahavir Yadav, who is
father of Bramhdeo Yadav. In paragraph no.14 of his cross
examination, P.W.1 has stated that alarm was not raised with full
force and when he had gone out of his house, the villagers had
not arrived there, however he had seen eight accused persons
but he had not seen anyone else. In paragraph no.15 of his cross
examination, P.W.1 has stated that it was a moonlit night and
after seeing eight accused persons, he had raised alarm,
whereafter people from the neighbourhood had arrived after 10
minutes. He has further stated that till the time the villagers
arrived, he became unconscious and came to the room where he
remained unconscious for 10 minutes, however he has then
stated that he was unconscious till 10 a.m. He has also stated
that after he regained consciousness, no person came before
him. He has denied the suggestion that they were having land
related dispute with muslim people and his father was killed by
them.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
21/65
18. P.W.2 Sanjay Yadav is the brother of the informant and
son of the deceased and he has stated in his evidence that the
incident dates back to 02.05.2015 at about 1:30 a.m. in the
night, when he was sleeping in his house and then he had heard
the sound of shouting of his father Jagdeo Yadav and his brother
Sachendra Yadav, whereafter he had gone to the door of his
house and his brother Gajendra Yadav had reached there before
him. He has also stated that after he had gone to the place of
occurrence, his brother and sister-in-law had also arrived there
from behind. P.W.2 has further stated that after all of them had
gone to the door of the house they saw their father smeared with
blood. He has also stated that all the other accused persons
named in the FIR were armed with lathi and farsa, who had
assaulted his brother Sachendra Yadav (P.W.6). He has stated
that Awadhesh Yadav had assaulted his brother Sachendra Yadav
by farsa on his right leg. All of them, including the mother of
P.W.2, his brother and others had then raised alarm together,
whereafter the co-villagers had started assembling there and
then the accused persons fled away. Thereafter, three unknown
miscreants had stolen boxes from the house in which jewellery
worth Rs.36,000/- and cash amount of Rs.20,000/- was kept. He
has also stated that jewellery worth 30,000/- was kept in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
22/65
box, apart from clothes, etc. He has next stated that with the
help of the co-villagers, his father was taken to Chhatapur along
with his brother, where the Doctor found the condition of his
father to be serious, hence he had referred him to hospital at
Biratnagar where the Doctor said that he has died.
19. P.W.2 has next stated that he had made a statement before
the police on the second day as per the incident witnessed by
him. He has also stated that there was land related dispute in
between the parties, which had resulted in the occurrence in
question. He had recognized the accused persons standing in the
dock. In paragraph no.4 of his cross examination, P.W. 2 has
stated that he used to stay at Ludhiana with his relative
Awadhesh Yadav. In paragraph no.8 of his cross examination,
P.W.2 has stated that he does not know Bhuto Khan and Anish
who may be resident of the village in question, however he is
having no knowledge and he has got no land related dispute
with them. He has also stated that his father was having land
related dispute with Bramhdeo Yadav from before and
Panchayati was also held with regard to the said dispute. In
paragraph no.9 of his cross examination, P.W.2 has stated that he
cannot remember as to in which year the Panchayati was held.
He has also stated that after the Panchayati, document was made
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
23/65
and the same was signed by Umesh Chandra Mandal, who was
the Member of the District Panchayat. He has also stated that
Panchayati had taken place for one bigha land and the Panches
had told them to vacate the land, however the accused persons
said that they would not leave the land in question. P.W.2 has
further stated that the Panches had given the document to his
father in his hand which was kept in a box but the same was
stolen, thus, whether the documents would be available or not,
he cannot say. He has also denied the suggestion that there was
no land related dispute with Bramhdeo Yadav (appellant of the
first case) and that on account of land dispute, Bramhdeo Yadav
has been wrongly implicated by creating a conspiracy.
20. P.W.3 Meeno Devi is the wife of P.W.1 Gajendra Yadav
and sister-in-law of the informant. P.W.3 has stated in her
evidence that the incident dates back to 02.05.2015 at about
1:30 a.m while she was sleeping at her house, when she heard
an alarm being raised by her father-in-law Jagdeo Yadav and
brother-in-law Sachendra Yadav, whereupon she had gone
running to the door of her house and firstly her husband P.W.1
had gone there. She has also stated that her mother P.W.4 and
sister-in-law P.W.5 had also gone along with her and then she
saw that Bramhdeo Yadav had cut his father-in-law by kudaal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
24/65
(hoe) and was holding kudaal (hoe) in his hand on which blood
stains were present. Awadhesh Yadav had assaulted his brother-
in-law by farsa and rest of the FIR named accused persons had
also assaulted his brother-in-law. She has also stated that upon
alarm being raised, co-villagers had arrived there and taken her
father-in-law to Chhatapur along with his brother-in-law. Her
father-in-law was then referred to Biratnagar and her brother-in-
law was treated at Chhatapur. She has also stated that when her
father-in-law reached Biratnagar, the Doctor declared him dead.
P.W.3 has further stated that three unknown persons had entered
the house and stolen three boxes containing a sum of
Rs.36,000/- and clothes. She has also stated that the incident
took place on account of land dispute. The land belongs to
Jagdeo Yadav and because of the land dispute he was killed.
P.W.3 had recognized the accused persons standing in the dock.
She has stated that Jagdeo Yadav was 60-65 years old and he
was not sick, however he was treated long back. In paragraph
no.5, she has stated that she has witnessed the occurrence with
her eyes.
21. P.W.3 has further stated that she had first heard the sound
of shouting of her father-in-law and then she heard the sound of
shouting of her brother-in-law. She has stated that her father-in-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
25/65
law was sleeping alone. In paragraph no.9 of her cross
examination, P.W.3 has stated that before she had reached the
place of occurrence, her husband and brother-in-law had
reached there, however she has again stated that nobody had
reached there. She has stated that when she reached the place of
occurrence, Brahmdeo Yadav was holding kudaal (hoe) and
Awadhesh Yadav and others were holding lathi and farsa in
their hands. In paragraph no.13 of her cross examination, P.W.3
has stated that the Police Station is at a distance of 12 kms from
her house and the Police arrived there after half an hour as also
the people had arrived there after 15 minutes of her reaching
there. In paragraph no.16 of her cross examination, P.W.3 has
stated that the land dispute was existing in between her father-
in-law and the accused persons from before. In paragraph no.17
of her cross examination, P.W.3 has stated that knowledge about
occurrence was there from before. She has stated that blood had
not fallen down on the ground but had fallen on the mattress and
had also spread on the floor, however the blood soaked soil was
not seized by the Police. She has stated that the assault was
made twice on the head of her father-in-law. She has also stated
that the neighbours had not witnessed the incident.
22. P.W.4 Deepo Devi is wife of the deceased and mother of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
26/65
the informant. She has stated in her deposition that the
occurrence dates back to 02.05.2015 at about 1:30 a.m. in the
night, when she was in her room and was sleeping with her
children and then she heard her husband shouting that he has
fallen on the ground, whereafter she had gone there and saw that
Brahmdeo Yadav was standing and there was blood stains on the
kudaal (hoe), which he was holding as also his husband had
fallen down. She has also stated that Sachendra Yadav was also
standing there, who is her son. She also saw Awadhesh Yadav,
Rajesh Yadav, Naresh Yadav, Rikesh Yadav, Kishundeo Yadav
and Sudhu Yadav standing there, who had caught hold of her
son and were also assaulting him. P.W.4 has further stated that
she had only seen this much and thereafter, she became
unconscious and fell on the ground. She has also stated that land
dispute is existing, the land is in the name of her husband and
the accused persons were harassing them. The husband of P.W.4
was then taken to the hospital when he was alive and then he
had died there. P.W.4 had recognized the accused persons
standing in the dock. In para no.3 of her cross examination,
P.W.4 has stated that she had gone to the place of occurrence
upon hulla (alarm) being raised but his son had reached the
place of occurrence before her and when she reached there, she
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
27/65
saw that Brahmdeo Yadav was standing there with kudaal (hoe)
and Awadhesh Yadav was also standing there and they had
caught hold of her husband, apart from Rajesh Yadav having
also caught hold of her husband. She has also stated that her
husband is aged about 60 years and was not ill.
23. In paragraph no.6 of her cross examination, P.W.4 has
stated that her statement was recorded by the police on the next
day at about 8 a.m. in the morning at the door of her house. She
has also stated that her daughter-in-law Minoo Devi and Nutan
Devi had also given their statements. In paragraph no.8 of her
cross examination, P.W.4 has stated that she had seen the
occurrence by her own eyes and she had seen the kudaal (hoe)
as also seen Brahmdeo Yadav assaulting by kudaal (hoe). In
paragraph no.9 of her cross examination, P.W.4 has stated that
upon hearing the shouting of her husband, she had gone running
outside and had reached near him, whereafter she saw that blood
stains were present on the clothes and the mattress as also the
blood had spread over an area equivalent to two hands. In
paragraph no.10 of her cross examination, she has stated that the
Chowkidaar had taken away the mattress and the blood stained
clothes which her husband had worn after she had given the
clothes to the Police. In paragraph no.11 of her cross
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
28/65
examination, P.W.4 has stated that land dispute is going on since
past one year and the land belongs to her husband as also the
land is khatiyani. She has also stated that Panchayati was also
held pertaining to the land in question and after Panchayati, both
the sides have been barred from tilling the land and at the
moment, paddy is growing on the land in question. She has also
stated that they had also sown rice.
24. In paragraph no.13 of her cross examination, P.W.4 has
stated that upon alarm being raised, many people from the
neighbourhood had come and she was unconscious. In
paragraph no.14 of her cross examination, P.W.4 has stated that
at the place where her husband was sleeping, there was no
provision for light and the lantern was lit upto 10 p.m. and
thereafter, she was sleeping in dark. In paragraph no.15 of her
cross examination, P.W.4 has stated that she was not able to see
as to what was happening outside in the dark and whatever her
son has told her, she has narrated. In paragraph no.16 of her
cross examination, P.W.4 has stated that the accused persons
who were standing are agnets and neighbours and she
recognizes them. In paragraph no.17 of her cross examination,
P.W.4 has stated that the accused persons had stopped them and
surrounded the land in question and thereafter case was filed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
29/65
She has also stated that apart from land dispute, there is no other
enmity with the accused persons. P.W.4 has also stated that on
account of land dispute, they have been made accused. In
paragraph no.18 of her cross examination, P.W.4 has stated that
there is no land dispute with Anis and Bhuto. In paragraph no.21
of her cross examination, P.W.4 has stated that the place of
sleeping of her husband is at a distance of 10 hands from the
place where she was sleeping. P.W.4 has also stated that she had
gone at the place of occurrence after half an hour of hearing the
sound. Finally, she has stated that it is not a fact that because of
land dispute, the accused persons have been wrongly implicated.
25. P.W.5 Nutan Devi is the wife of the informant and she
has stated in her deposition that the occurrence dates back to
about 1 ½ years, month-Baisakh and the occurrence had taken
place in the midnight when she was sleeping in her house. She
has stated that hulla (alarm) took place at the door and her
father-in-law was shouting, whereafter her husband (P.W.6) had
firstly gone there and then her elder brother-in-law Sanjay
Yadav (P.W.2), elder sister-in-law and mother-in-law (P.W.4)
had gone there along with her. She has further stated that upon
going there, she found that the forehead of her father-in-law was
cut and blood was oozing out as also Brahmdeo Yadav
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
30/65
(appellant of the first case) was holding kudaal (hoe) and Sudhu
Yadav, Kishundeo, Rajesh, Awadhesh, Naresh, Rikesh and
Dhawal were present there, armed with lathi and farsain their
hand. She has next stated that hulla (alarm) had been raised at
the door of her house. Thereafter, the aforesaid people i.e. her
husband, her elder brother-in-law and elder sister-in-law were
also assaulted by the accused. P.W.5 has also stated that
thereafter, her husband and other persons had together taken
father-in-law to Chhatapur, Supaul. She has also stated that the
accused persons claim that the land belongs to them, whereas
the fact is that the land is her’s and is in the name of her father-
in-law. She has also stated that she recognizes Kishundeo Yadav,
Awadhesh Yadav, Brahmdeo Yadav and others. She has stated
that her father-in-law died on the same day at Supaul.
26. In her cross examination, P.W.5 has stated that land
dispute is existing in between both the parties since 2-3 years
and on account of the land dispute, there is strained relationship
in between the parties. In paragraph no.3 of her cross
examination, P.W.5 has stated that she was told about the
incident by many people, including her husband, who was at his
house and had not gone to the hospital at Supaul. In paragraph
no.4 of her cross examination, P.W.5 has stated that her husband
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
31/65
had given information about the occurrence at 8 a.m. in the
morning. In paragraph no.5 of her cross examination, P.W.5 has
stated that her statement was recorded by the police on the next
day of the incident. In paragraph no.6 of her cross examination,
P.W.5 has stated that the land with regard to which dispute is
existing, is being tilled by her father-in-law as also by her
husband. In paragraph no.9 of her cross examination, P.W.5 has
stated that all the accused persons are neighbours, whom she
recognizes and Brahmdeo Yadav had remained Sarpanch of the
village. In paragraph no.10 of her cross examination, P.W.5 has
stated that she cannot say as to who had taken away the boxes
from her house. In para no.12 of her cross examination, P.W.5
has stated that whatever she has stated today was actually
witnessed by her.
27. In paragraph no.14 and 15 of her cross examination,
P.W.5 has stated that the police arrived at the place of
occurrence at 1 p.m. in the afternoon and when the police
arrived, her father-in-law was at the Doctor’s place. In
paragraph no.16 of her cross examination, P.W.5 has stated that
Brahmdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case) was holding
kudaal (hoe) in his hand and others were holding lathi and farsa
in their hand, however she cannot specifically say about the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
32/65
same. In paragraph no.17 of her cross examination, P.W.5 has
stated that it was lighted at the time of occurrence, her father-in-
law was sleeping in the house and on the door her elder brother-
in-law and others sleep. In paragraph no.18 of her cross
examination, P.W.5 has stated that her husband had gone after
10 minutes of the occurrence and all those who were present in
house had woken up upon hearing hulla (alarm). In her cross
examination, P.W.5 has stated that she had not given the blood
stained clothes to the police. The blood had fallen on the ground
and the police had not seized blood soaked mud as also she had
not given kudaal (hoe) to the police. In paragraph no.22 of her
cross examination, P.W.5 has stated that her father-in-law had
become unconscious after sustaining injuries. In paragraph
no.23 of her cross examination, P.W.5 has stated that after the
land dispute is sorted out, no enmity would exist, however the
case was filed due to land dispute.
28. P.W.6 Sachendra Yadav is the informant of the present
case, who has stated in his deposition that he had filed the case
and the occurrence dates back to 02.05.2015 at about 1:30 a.m.
in the night when he was sleeping in his room. Suddenly, he
heard his father shouting at the door of the house and as soon as
he ran and opened the door, he saw Brahmdeo Yadav armed
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
33/65
with kudaal (hoe) and Kishundeo Yadav, Sudhu Yadav, Rajesh
Yadav, Awadhesh Yadav, Naresh Yadav, Ritesh Yadav and
Dhawal Yadav, having caught hold of his father and having
climbed over him. P.W.6 has further stated that he had tried to
catch hold of Brahmdeo Yadav but in the meantime, he had
given a kudaal (hoe) blow on the head of his father, whereafter
severe bleeding started from his head on account of it being cut.
Thereafter, Brahmdeo Yadav told his accomplice that father has
already been killed, hence they should kill the others, whereafter
all the accused persons had surrounded them from all sides, who
were armed with lathi, farsa, balam and sword and then they
assaulted P.W.6 indiscriminately, whereupon P.W.6 raised an
alarm, leading to his elder brother Gajendra Yadav (P.W.1),
younger brother Sanjay Yadav (P.W. 2), sister-in-law Minoo
Devi (P.W.3), mother Deepo Devi (P.W.4) and Urmila Devi
having arrived there. Thereafter, Awadhesh Yadav (appellant
no.2 of the second case)had given a farsa blow on the right leg
of P.W.6, resulting in cut injury and then they had assaulted him
with balamand destroyed his leg, leading to him falling down
and having become unconscious. Thereafter, his brother, mother
and other family members as also co-villagers had arrived there
and taken him and his father to the hospital at Chhatapur where
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
34/65
his and his father’s treatment was done, however his father was
referred to Biratnagar, where the Doctor declared him to be
dead. He has also stated that he regained consciousness at
Chhatapur at 10 a.m. and he had given his written report,
scribed by Satyanarayan Yadav as told by him at the nearby
police station, which also bears his signature, which he has
recognized and the same has been marked as Exhibit-1.
29. P.W.6 has further stated that when he had gone to file
FIR someone from the house had come and told him that three
boxes are also missing from the house in which documents
relating to 19 bighas land were kept, apart from the said boxes
containing his I-card, cash totalling to a sum of Rs.36,000/-,
jewellery and clothes as also cash to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. He
has also stated that he can’t recognize the three persons who had
taken away the boxes. P.W.6 has next stated that the reason for
occurrence is that Brahmdeo Yadav was saying that the land
belongs to him, which actually belongs to P.W.6, however he
had not shown any document. He has also stated that his father,
at the time of Panchayati, had gone there with documents,
kewala and receipt, whereafter the Panches had given decision
in favour of P.W.6 and his family members and had said that his
father should be allowed to cultivate the land in question,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
35/65
however 2-3 days thereafter, the occurrence in question had
taken place. P.W.6 had recognized the accused persons present
in the dock. P.W.6 has next stated that all the accused persons
had surrounded his father and snatched documents from him
and had taken it away. In paragraph no.4 of the cross
examination, P.W.6 has stated that land dispute was going on in
between his father and Brahmdeo Yadav since past one month
for which a case under Section 107 Cr.P.C. had been filed by
them. He has also stated that his father had purchased the land
from Kurban in cash in the year, 1965 and the same was not
given to Brahmdeo Yadav. In paragraph no.5 of his cross
examination, P.W.6 has stated that Bhuto Miya is his co-villager
whom he knows, however there is no dispute with him with
regard to the said land in question and it is not a fact that he is
hiding the fact that Bhuto Miya does not allow his father to go
to the said land. In paragraph no.11 of his cross examination,
P.W.6 has stated that upon hulla (alarm) being raised, he had
woken up, but he did not make any attempt to wake up his wife
and brothers as also his neighbours because immediately upon
hearing hulla (alarm), the accused persons had assaulted him,
resulting in him becoming unconscious, whereafter he regained
consciousness in the hospital, where Doctor and co-villagers
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
36/65
were present but upon regaining consciousness, he did not see
the co-villagers but he was then lifted and taken away by the
police. P.W.6 has also stated that he remained at the Police
Station upto 2:00 hours.
30. P.W.7 Dr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh is the Doctor, who had
conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the
deceased and he has stated in his deposition that on 02.05.2015,
he was posted at Sadar Hospital, Supaul and had conducted the
post-mortem examination of the dead body of Jagdeo Yadav,
aged about 68 years, whose dead body was brought and
identified by Chaukidar Shiv Shankar Paswan. He has further
opined that on external appearance, he found the deceased to be
average built, height about 5ft. 7 inches, eyes closed, mouth
semi open, rigor mortis present, hair mixed and matted with
blood as also blood clots were present on the face of the
deceased. On external examination, P.W.7 had found the
following injuries:-
“Incised injury from the lateral aspect of skull to lower
portion of chin, cavity deep with incised injury to
corresponding structure with incision of pinna on right
side.”
On dissection, P.W.7 found the following:-
Right temporoparietal bone of skull incised with
laceration of membrane and brain matter with blood
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
37/65clots present in the skull,
All the structure of face corresponding to above
mentioned injury including muscles, arteries, bone,
veins were incised,Chest wall, ribs and cartilage-NAD,
pleura-NAD, larynx and trachea-NAD,
lungs-pale,
pericardium-pale,
heart empty large vessel collapse,
abdominal wall-NAD,
peritoneum-NAD,
mouth incised injury corresponding to above
mentioned external injury,
stomach contains small quantity of digested and semi
digested food materials. Both small and large intestine
contains gas, liquid and faeces.
Liver and spleen-pale,
both kidney-pale,
bladder contains small quantity of residual urine.
Both external and internal genitals-NAD.
P.W.7 has opined as follows:-
(1) All the above mentioned injuries are anti-mortem in
nature.
(2) Cause of death due to haemorrhage and shock caused
by above mentioned injuries by sharp cutting substance.(3) Time elapsed since death 6-24 hours.
P.W.7 has stated that the post-mortem report has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
38/65
prepared by him in his writing, which also bears his signature
and the same has been marked as Exhibit-2. P.W.7 has next
stated that sharp cutting instrument, may be kudaal.
31. In his cross examination, P.W.7 has stated that death after
injury is in between 6 to 24 hours and that external injury was
found on skull and no clotting of blood was found on spot of
external injury. He has also stated that he had found blood on
the face of the deceased and the same was also mentioned by
him in his report. In paragraph no.10 of his cross examination,
P.W.7 has stated that such type of injury may be caused by
Talwar (sword) but not by knife. In para no.11 of his cross
examination, P.W.7 has stated that he cannot say about the exact
time of death, however he can only say that it was in between 6
to 24 hours. He has stated that he has no knowledge about
making private notes.
32. P.W.8 Gyan Prakash Srivastav has stated in his
examination-in-chief that on 18.07.2015, he was the Officer-in-
Charge, Chhatapur and had assumed the investigation of
Chhatapur P.S. Case No.92 of 2015 as also had recorded the
statement of injured Sachendra Yadav in the case diary,
whereafter he had received Supervision Note 1 and 2 and then
he had handed over the charge to Rajnish Kumar Keshri on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
39/65
20.7.2018. In cross examination, he has stated that after
assuming charge of investigation, he did not record the
statement of any witness. In para no.4 of his cross examination,
P.W.8 has stated that he did not get much opportunity to conduct
investigation.
33. P.W.9 Dr. Lalan Kumar Thakur has stated in his
deposition that on 02.05.2015, he was posted at Primary Health
Centre, Chhatapur and on that day, he had examined injured
Sachendra Yadav at 3:30 p.m. & had found following injuries on
his person:-
i. Swelling over vertex of head 2 ½”
ii. Bruise right side of forehead 2″x 1″
iii. Incised wound outeraspect of right leg 1″x 1/6″x skin
deep
Injury no. i and ii caused by hard and blunt substance-
simple in nature.
Injury no.iii caused by sharp cutting substance- simple in
nature.
Marks of identification- mole on right side chest.
Age of injury -within 6 hours.
P.W.9 has further stated that the Injury Report was
prepared by him in his writing and bears his signature, which
has been marked as Exhibit-3. In his cross examination, P.W.9
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
40/65
has stated that injury no.i and ii can also occur on account of
honeybee bite and can also take place on account of falling on
hard substance. With regard to injury no.iii, P.W.9 has stated that
it can also take place by falling on sharp stone. He has also
stated that he has not mentioned the colour of the injury and all
the three injuries can be self-inflicted.
34. P.W.10 Chandrakant Gauri has stated in his deposition
that he was posted as Officer-in-Charge, Chhatapur Police
Station on 02.05.2015 and on that day, he had received a written
report from the informant, namely Sachendra Yadav (P.W.6),
wherein he had mentioned about killing of his father and the
assault made by the accused persons. He has also stated that on
the basis of the written report, he had registered Chhatapur P.S.
Case No.92 of 2015 dated 02.05.2015 under Sections 302/452
and 380/34 of the I.P.C. The formal FIR is in the writing of
Munsi (Clerk) Ramesh Kumar, which also bears his signature
and the same has been marked as Exhibit-4. P.W.10 has next
stated that he had assumed the investigation of the case and had
then prepared the Inquest Report, which also bears his signature,
however the Inquest Report is not before him. He has also stated
that he had sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem
examination and had also recorded the re-statement of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
41/65
informant wherein the informant had fully supported the version
as recorded in the FIR. P.W.10, has also stated that he had then
proceeded from the Police Station to the place of occurrence and
inspected the same and had also recorded the statement of
witness Gajendra Yadav (P.W.1), who was present at the place of
occurrence. He has also stated that the place of occurrence falls
under the Chhatapur Police Station at Village-Bhagwatpur, Ward
No.8 and is situated towards the western side of State Highway-
9. He has next stated that the accused persons had assaulted the
informant and his father and injured them badly, whereafter the
father of the informant, namely Jagdeo Yadav had died during
the course of treatment.
35. In paragraph no.7 of his cross examination, P.W.10 has
stated that he had recorded the statement of Gajendra Yadav
(P.W.1) at the place of occurrence, apart from recording the
statement of Minoo Devi (P.W.3), Nutan Devi (P.W.5) and
Deepo Devi (P.W.4). In paragraph no.8, P.W.10 has stated that
he had also recorded the statement of Sanjay Yadav (P.W. 2) and
all the witnesses had fully supported the occurrence. In
paragraph no.9, P.W.10 has stated that the occurrence had taken
place on 02.05.2015 at 1:30 a.m. in the night and information
was received at the Police Station at 1:50 a.m. He has also stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
42/65
that the distance of the Police Station from the place of
occurrence is about 12 kms. In paragraph no.10 of his cross
examination, P.W.10 has stated that it takes 30-35 minutes to
reach the place of occurrence from the Police Station by a fast
vehicle. He has stated that FIR was registered at 8 a.m. on the
basis of information received at 1:30 a.m. in the form of written
report, which was given at the Police Station by the informant
Sachendra Yadav. He has also stated that Sachendra Yadav was
injured, however he had not written the Injury Report of
Sachendra Yadav. He has stated that as per the FIR, none else
other than Sachendra Yadav was injured.
36. In paragraph no.12 of his cross examination, P.W.10 has
stated that at the time when he received information, the
deceased had died. He has stated that he had started the
investigation after 8:50 a.m and he had left for the place of
occurrence at 9:50 am. He has also stated that he had left the
Police Station after recording the statement of the informant. He
has next stated that the ambulance containing the dead body of
the deceased reached the Police Station at about 9 a.m. and then
re-statement of the informant was recorded and at 9 a.m.,
Inquest Report was also prepared. In paragraph no.14, P.W.10
has stated that no paper was given to him with regard to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
43/65
treatment of the deceased at Primary Health Centre, Chhatapur.
He has also stated that it has been mentioned in the FIR that the
deceased was taken to Primary Health Centre, Chhatapur,
however he had not gone to Primary Health Centre, Chhatapur
for verification of the said fact. In paragraph no.15, P.W.10 has
stated that the informant, in his re-statement had not disclosed
the time of death of the deceased. The death of the deceased had
taken place at Neuro-Cardio Hospital, Biratnagar, however he
had not verified the same. In paragraph no.16 of his cross
examination, P.W.10 has stated that he had prepared the Inquest
Report at the Police Station in the ambulance and copy of
Inquest Report, kept in the case diary is before him. In the
Inquest Report, he had not mentioned about blood stains on the
clothes of the deceased. He has also stated that he had seen
injury marks over the waist and below the neck, however he had
not found any blood stains. In paragraph no.19, P.W.10 has
stated that no blood marks were found outside the door of the
house of the informant.
37. In paragraph no.20, P.W.10 has stated that he did not see
any such thing at the place of occurrence, from which it would
transpire that killing had taken place. In paragraph no.22 of his
cross examination, P.W.10 has also stated that all the witnesses,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
44/65
whose statements were recorded by him belong to the same
family and they were sleeping at the time of occurrence and had
arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing hulla (alarm). In
paragraph no.24 of his cross examination, P.W.10 has stated that
when he reached at the place of occurrence, he had recorded the
statement of the witnesses present there, however he had not
recorded the statement of any independent witness. In paragraph
no.25, P.W. 10 has stated that he had not made any effort to
recover the weapon and had not found the weapon at the place
of occurrence. In paragraph no.26, P.W.10 has stated that he had
not conducted any raid at the house of the accused persons to
recover the weapon. In the FIR, the motive of the occurrence
has been stated as land dispute, however he had not conducted
any investigation on the point of land dispute. In paragraph
no.27 of his cross examination, P.W.10 has stated that in the
corner of the written report, name of the scribe has been
mentioned as Satyanarayan Yadav, however he had not recorded
his statement but he belongs to Kumarkhand Police Station.
38. After closing the prosecution evidence, the Ld. Trial
Court recorded the statement of the aforesaid appellants on
27.07.2017 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C for enabling them to
personally explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
45/65
against them, however they claimed to be innocent and said that
they would furnish defence witness.
39. The learned Trial Court upon appreciation, analysis and
scrutiny of the evidence adduced at the trial, has found the
aforesaid appellants guilty of the offence and has sentenced
them to imprisonment and fine as stated above, by its judgment
and order.
40. We have perused the impugned judgment of the Ld. Trial
Court, the entire materials on record and have given thoughtful
consideration to the rival submissions made by the Ld. Counsel
for the appellants as well as the Ld. APP for the State. The first
and foremost aspect which is required to be adjudged is as to
whether any ocular evidence is available on record to prove the
guilt of the aforesaid appellants for the offences with which they
have been charged. The prosecution has led the evidence of P.W
1 Gajendra Yadav, P.W. 2 Sanjay Yadav, P.W. 3 Minoo Devi,
P.W.4 Deepo Devi, P.W.5 Nutan Devi and P.W.6 Sachendra
Yadav (informant of the present case) to prove the guilt of the
accused and based on the same, the Ld. Trial Judge has
convicted the appellants whereas on the contrary, the appellants
have primarily taken the defence that the said witnesses are not
eye witnesses and they have not witnessed the commission of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
46/65
the alleged occurrence. In this regard, upon examining the
evidence of P.W. 1 Gajendra Yadav, we find that he has stated in
his deposition that in the night of 02.05.2015 while he was
sleeping in the night in the room of his house, he heard his
father and brother Sachendra Yadav (P.W. 6) shouting,
whereafter he ran and went to the door of the house and saw that
Brahmdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case) has cut the head of
his father by kudaal (hoe) and then his brother was assaulted by
Awadesh Yadav (appellant no.2 of the second case) by inflicting
farsa blow on his right leg. P.W. 1 has also stated that in the
meantime, the other witnesses, examined by the prosecution,
had also arrived there and then they had raised alarm,
whereupon the co-villagers had arrived, whereafter the accused
persons had fled away, wherupon the deceased was taken to
Health Centre at Chhatapur from where he was referred to
Biratnagar but upon reaching there, he was declared dead. P.W.
1 has also stated that the motive for the said occurrence is pre-
existing land dispute. P.W. 1 has next stated in his evidence that
he had seen eight accused persons there, including the appellant
no.1 of the second case.
41. As far as P.W. 2 Sanjay Yadav is concerned, he has stated
in his deposition that in the night at about 1:30 a.m. while he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
47/65
was sleeping in the room of his house, he heard his father and
brother Sachendra Yadav (P.W. 6) shouting, whereafter he ran
and went to the door of his house where his brother Gajendra
Yadav (P.W. 1) had already reached before him and saw that his
father was smeared with blood as also he saw that all the
aforesaid appellants and other accused persons named in the FIR,
armed with lathi and farsa, were assaulting his brother Sachendra
Yadav (P.W. 6), whereafter Awadesh Yadav, the appellant no.2 of
the second case had assaulted his brother Sachendra Yadav (P.W.
6) by farsa on his right leg and in the meantime, the other
witnesses examined by the prosecution had arrived there, leading
to them raising an alarm, resulting in the co-villagers having
assembled there, whereupon the accused persons had fled away.
P.W. 2 has further stated that land dispute was existing in between
the parties which has led to the occurrence in question and in fact
his father (deceased) was having land related dispute with
Brahmdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case) from before. Now,
coming to P.W. 3 Minoo Devi, she has also stated in her
deposition that in the night of 02.05.2015 at about 1:30 a.m.
when she was sleeping in the room of her house, she heard her
father and brother Sachendra Yadav (P.W. 6) shouting, whereafter
she went running to the door of her house and saw that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
48/65
Brahmdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case) had cut his father-
in-law with kudaal (hoe) and was holding the kudaal (hoe) on
which blood stains were present and her husband had fallen
down, whereafter all the accused persons, including Sudhu
Yadav (appellant no.1 of the second case) had assaulted her son
Sachendra Yadav (P.W. 6). She has also stated that in the
meantime, other witnesses had arrived including the villagers
and then the accused persons had fled away. She has next stated
that she had seen the occurrence with her own eyes.
42. As regards, P.W. 5 Nutan Devi, she has stated in her
evidence that the occurrence took place around midnight while
she was sleeping in her house and upon hearing hulla (alarm) at
the door as also upon hearing her father-in-law shouting, her
husband P.W. 6 had firstly gone there and then she along with
other witnesses examined by the prosecution had also gone
there and then she found that the forehead of her father-in-law
had been cut, blood was oozing out, Brahmdeo Yadav (appellant
of the first case) was holding kudaal (hoe) in his hand and the
other accused persons including Sudhu Yadav (appellant no.1 of
the second case) were standing there, armed with lathi and
farsa, whereafter the said accused persons had assaulted
Sachendra Yadav (P.W. 6) and others. She has also stated that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
49/65
she had actually witnessed the occurrence and the same had
occurred on account of land dispute between the parties existing
since 2-3 years.
43. Now, coming to the informant Sachendra Yadav (P.W. 6),
we find that he has stated in his deposition that the occurrence
dates back to 02.05.2015 at about 1:30 a.m. in the night when he
was sleeping in his room and then he heard his father shouting
at the door of his house, whereupon he ran and opened the door
and saw that Brahmdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case),
armed with kudaal (hoe) and other accused persons including
the appellant of the second case had caught hold of his father
and had climbed over him, however while he had tried to catch
Brahmdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case), he inflicted
kudaal (hoe) blow on the head of his father, leading to his head
being cut, whereafter blood started oozing out. Thereafter,
Brahmdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case) had exhorted
others to kill the informant, whereupon all the accused persons
including the appellants of the second case had assaulted him
with lathi, farsa, balam and sword indiscriminately P.W.6 had
then raised an alarm and thereafter, all the witnesses had arrived
there, whereupon Awadesh Yadav (appellant no.2 of the second
case) had given farsa blow on the right leg of the informant,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
50/65
resulting in him sustaining cut injury. The other accused persons
had then assaulted the informant with balam and destroyed his
leg. He has also stated that on account of land dispute going on
in between his father and Brahmdeo Yadav (appellant of the first
case), the present occurrence has taken place.
44. On going through the discussion made hereinabove in the
preceding paragraphs with regard to the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that they have supported
the case of the prosecution and no contradictions have been
elicited in their cross examination to doubt the veracity of their
testimony. In fact all the aforesaid prosecution witnesses i.e.
P.W. 1 to P.W. 6 have definitely seen Brahmdeo Yadav
(appellant of the first case) holding a kudaal (hoe) in his hand
stained with blood and the deceased Jagdeo Yadav having fallen
down on the ground besides him. In fact P.W.1 Gajendra Yadav
and P.W. 6 Sachendra Yadav have also seen Brahmdeo Yadav
(appellant of the first case) inflicting kudaal (hoe) blow on the
head of the deceased, leading to his head being cut, whereafter
blood started oozing out. Moreover, it is evident from the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses that all of them have
deposed that they had seen Awadesh Yadav inflicting farsa blow
on the right leg of the informant i.e. Sachendra Yadav (P.W. 6)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
51/65
as also had seen the other accused persons assaulting the
informant. We also find that Sachendra Yadav (P.W. 6) is an
injured witness and it is a well settled law that injured witness is
granted special status and they offer an extremely valuable piece
of evidence. In this regard, reference be had to a judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abdul
Sayeed vs State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010(10) SCC
259, wherein it has been held that where a witness to the
occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the
testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very
reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in-guarantee
of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare
his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. It
has also been held that convincing evidence is required to
discredit an injured witness.
45. Reference be also had to a judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Birbal Nath vs State of
Rajasthan, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1396, wherein it
has been held that greater evidentiary value is attached to the
injured witness unless compelling reasons exist to doubt the
same.
46. As regards the place of occurrence, all the prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
52/65
witnesses i.e. P.W.1 to P.W.6 have deposed that the same is the
door of the house of the informant/ his father (deceased) and the
same also stands corroborated from the evidence of P.W. 10,
namely Chandrakant Gauri, i.e. the then Investigating Officer-
cum-Officer Incharge of Chhatapur Police Station. The motive
for carrying out the aforesaid occurrence stands substantiated
from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.1 to
P.W.6, who have all stated that pre-existing land dispute in
between the deceased and Brahmdeo Yadav (appellant of the
first case) have resulted in the accused persons giving effect to
the aforesaid occurrence.
47. As far as the issue of credibility of a related/intrested
witness is concerned, we are tempted to quote paragraph no. 26
of an old classic judgment rendered by a Three Judges Bench of
the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Dalip Singh and Others
vs. The State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1953 SC 364, which is
reproduced herein below:-
“26. A witness is normally to be considered
independent unless he or she springs from sources
which are likely to be tainted and that usually means
unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against
the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely.
Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
53/65the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent
person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is
personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to
drag in an innocent person against whom a witness
has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must
be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of
relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure
guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting
any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be
judged on its own facts. Our observations are only
made to combat what is so often put forward in cases
before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no
such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be
governed by its own facts.”
48. Now, coming to the contention raised by the Ld. Senior
Counsel for the appellants to the effect that the medical
evidence does not support the ocular evidence, we find that on
the contrary, the post mortem report of the deceased definitely
corroborates the injury inflicted by Brahmdeo Yadav (appellant
of the first case) by kudaal (hoe) and infact P.W.7 Dr. Kanhaiya
Prasad Singh (the doctor, who has conducted post mortem
examination of the dead body of the deceased) has opined that
cause of death is hemorrhage and shock caused by injuries
mentioned in the post mortem report by sharp cutting substance
and in his cross examination, he has stated that the sharp cutting
instrument may be kudaal (hoe). The law relating to conflict
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
54/65
between oral and medical evidence is well settled to the effect
that unless and until the medical evidence is irreconcilably in
conflict with the oral evidence, the oral testimony of the eye
witnesses cannot be doubted. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held
in the case of Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of
Gujarat, reported in AIR 1983 SC 484 that unless the medical
evidence completely rules out all possibilities of injuries taking
place in the manner alleged, the testimony of the eye witnesses
cannot be thrown out. Thus, we find that there is no
irreconcilable conflict between the oral and the medical
evidence which would warrant discarding the prosecution case.
We also find that the ocular evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 6, which
are cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliable as also have
stood the test of cross examination, are totally reconcilable and
consistent with the medical evidence, hence there is no reason to
create any doubt about the guilt of the appellants in the alleged
occurrence, which stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
As regards non-seizure of the blood-soaked mud and the
weapons used, we find that these facts may be termed as some
short comings on behalf of the investigating agency but the
same would definitely not be enough to question the reliability
of the evidence of the eye witnesses who are said to be eyes and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
55/65
ears of justice.
49. We also find that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly
convicted the appellants of the second case for the offences
punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the
I.P.C. inasmuch as all the accused persons had together arrived
at the place of occurrence, armed with kudaal, lathi, farsa,
balam and sword and it is apparent from the evidence of P.W.1
to P.W.6 that they shared a common intention to commit a
criminal act, as aforesaid.
50. Thus, taking into account an overall perspective of the
entire case, emerging out of the totality of the facts and
circumstances, as indicated hereinabove and having perused the
entire evidence on record, we find that the evidence led by the
prosecution is cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliable,
hence there is nothing to doubt their testimony, on the basis of
which the Ld. Trial Court has convicted the appellants.
Therefore, there is no reason to create any doubt about the guilt
of the appellants of the aforesaid two appeals in the alleged
occurrence which stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
51. We would now take up for consideration the alternative
argument raised by the Ld. Senior counsel for the appellants to
the effect that the appellants had no intention to cause death
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
56/65
inasmuch as only single blow was inflicted on the head of the
deceased and as far as the informant Sachendra Yadav (P.W.6) is
concerned, farsa blow was inflicted on his right leg i.e. on the
non-vital part of the body causing simple injury, thus the present
case would not fall within the purview of Section 302 of the
I.P.C. rather it would at best attract the provision of Section 304
Part II of the I.P.C., in absence of any intention to cause the
death of the deceased. We have given a careful consideration to
the argument raised by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the
appellants. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned,
it is apparent not only from the evidence adduced by the
prosecution but also from the F.I.R. that the accused persons, all
armed with kudaal (hoe), farsa, balam and sword had arrived at
the door of the house of the deceased, surrounded him and
thereafter, Brahmdeo Yadav (appellant of the first case) had
inflicted single kudaal (hoe) blow on the head of the deceased
while Awadesh Yadav had inflicted farsa blow on the right leg
of the informant, namely Sachendra Yadav, however neither
repeated blows were inflicted upon the deceased/the informant
nor the accused persons had ensured that the deceased and the
informant were assaulted brutally in such a manner so as to
cause their death. From the entire conspectus of the case and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
57/65
considering the factual matrix, it can be gathered that the act
done by the appellant(s), who had caused death of the deceased,
was with a knowledge that such act is likely to cause death but
the facts are not such, so as to establish the intention of the
appellant(s) to cause death of the deceased. “Intent” and
“knowledge” are ingredients of Section 299 IPC and so far as an
act done by an accused which causes death with a knowledge
that the death was likely to be caused by such act but they did
not have any intention to cause death, would come within the
purview of Section 304 Part II IPC. Having considered the facts
and circumstances of the present case as also the well settled
law on the said issue, we safely conclude that the present case,
in absence of any intention on the part of the appellants to cause
death, cannot be described as murder but it would be culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
52. We may refer to a Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Khokhan @ Khokan Vishwas Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 365, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in paragraph-9 has
considered Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC and has held as
under:-
“9. Section 300 IPC is in two parts. The first part is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
58/65when culpable homicide can be said to be the murder
and the second part is the exceptions when the
culpable homicide is not murder. The relevant part of
Section 300 IPC for our purpose would be Clause 4 to
Section 300 and Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. As
per Clause 4 to Section 300 IPC, if the person
committing the act knows that it is so imminently
dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death
or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the
risk of causing death or such injury, such culpable
homicide can be said to be the murder. However, as
per Exception 4 to Section 300, culpable homicide is
not murder if it is committed without premeditation in
a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden
quarrel and without the offender having taken undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. As
per Explanation to Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it
is immaterial in such cases which party offers the
provocation or commits the first assault.”
53. In Litta Singh and another Vs. State of Rajasthan,
reported in (2015) 15 SCC 327, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India while converting the conviction under Section 302 to 304
Part II IPC has held as under:-
“23. Considering the nature of the injury caused to the
deceased and the weapons i.e. lathi and gandasi
(sickle) used by them, it cannot be ruled out that they
assaulted the deceased with the knowledge that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
59/65injury may cause death of the person. Moreover, there
is no evidence from the side of the prosecution that the
accused persons preplanned to cause death and with
that intention they were waiting for the deceased
coming from the field and then with an intention to kill
the deceased they assaulted him.
24. It is a well-settled proposition of law that the
intention to cause death with the knowledge that the
death will probably be caused, is a very important
consideration for coming to the conclusion that death
is indeed a murder with intention to cause death or
the knowledge that death will probably be caused.
From the testimonies of the witnesses, it does not
reveal that the accused persons intended to cause
death and with that intention they started inflicting
injuries on the body of the deceased. Even more
important aspect is that while they were beating the
deceased the witnesses reached the place and shouted
whereupon the accused persons immediately ran away
instead of inflicting more injuries with the intent to kill
the deceased.
26. After analysing the entire evidence, it is evidently
clear that the occurrence took place suddenly and
there was no premeditation on the part of the
appellants. There is no evidence that the appellants
made special preparation for assaulting the deceased
with the intent to kill him. There is no dispute that the
appellants assaulted the deceased in such a manner
that the deceased suffered grievous injuries which
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
60/65were sufficient to cause death, but we are convinced
that the injury was not intended by the appellants to
kill the deceased.
27. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our
considered opinion, the instant case falls under
Section 304 Part II IPC as stated above. Although the
appellants had no intention to cause death but it can
safely be inferred that the appellants knew that such
bodily injury was likely to cause death, hence the
appellants are guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder & are liable to be punished
under Section 304 Part II IPC.”
54. Thus, based on encapsulation of the above mentioned
facts and circumstances of the case and the law prevailing on
the subject matter, it has weighed upon us to come to a finding
that the present case would fall under Section 304 Part (II) of
the I.P.C., especially in view of the fact that from the evidence
adduced by the prosecution, intention to kill the deceased does
not get established and moreover, the elements of intention to
cause death seems to be missing. Therefore, upon considering
the entire case of the prosecution and the evidence adduced in
support of the same, we feel that the appellants of both the
aforesaid two appeals are liable to be convicted under Section
304 Part (II) of the I.P.C. As such, the conviction of the
appellants under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and the sentence of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
61/65
imprisonment for life awarded there under along with fine of
Rs.10,000 are set aside and instead the appellants are convicted
under Section 304 Part (II) of the I.P.C., however conviction
under Section 452/34 of the I.P.C. would stand against the
appellants but with no separate sentence being awarded there
under.
55. Before coming to the sentence part, we would like to
refer to few case laws wherein the conviction of the accused
persons have been converted from Section 302 IPC to one under
Section 304 Part (II) IPC and lesser than the maximum sentence
has been awarded or the accused persons have been sentenced to
undergo the custody period already undergone by them. In this
connection, reference be had to the following judgments
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court:-
(i) Camilo Vaz vs. State of Goa, reported in (2000) 9 SCC
1;
(ii) Rampal Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in (2012)
8SCC 289;
(iii) Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (2013) 6 SCC 770;
(iv) Chenda vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in(2013)
12 SCC 110;
(v) Surain Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2017) 5
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
62/65
SCC 796;
(vi) Anbazhagan vs. State, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 857; and
(vii) Velthepu Srinivas vs. State of Telangana, reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 107.
56. It would also be apt to refer to a judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in (2011)14 SCC
471 (Buddhu Singh & Others Vs. State of Bihar), wherein
once again the issue of conversion of conviction from Section
302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC was raised although the
death was caused by an axe blow on the head of the deceased.
The Hon’ble Apex Court, considering the absence of element of
intention, held that the offence constituted culpable homicide
not amounting to murder and converted the conviction of the
accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and
sentenced each of them to the period already undergone. We
think it proper to quote paragraphs-8 and 9 of the said judgment
herein below:-
“8. Considering the overall material, we are of the
view that there is hardly anything on record which can
be said against accused Ledwa Singh and Balchand
Singh though the common intention on their part could
be attributed since they had done the overt act of
grappling with and pinning down the deceased. Now,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
63/65seeing that his father and brother had been grappling
with the deceased, accused Buddhu Singh dealt an
axe-blow which could not be said to be intended
towards the head. It could have landed anywhere.
However, it landed on the head of the deceased.
Therefore, the element of intention is ruled out. Again
the defence raised on behalf of the accused that there
could not have been the intention to commit the
murder of the deceased is justified by the fact that
accused Buddhu Singh did not repeat the assault.
Under the circumstances, we feel that the prosecution
has been able to establish the guilt of the accused
persons under Section 304 Part II IPC.
9. We, accordingly, modify the finding of the High
Court and convert the conviction of the accused from
Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and
sentence each of them to the period already
undergone. Accused Buddhu Singh is stated to be in
jail for the last five years whereas other accused
persons, namely, Ledwa Singh and Balchand Singh are
stated to be in jail for the last ten years. They be
released from the jail forthwith unless they are
required in any other case.”
57. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
in the abovementioned judicial pronouncements, we would also
like to give a careful consideration to the facts of the present
case for the purpose of awarding a proper sentence. The facts
and circumstances of the present case depicts that the appellants
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
64/65
had never intended to cause any serious injury to anyone, which
would have caused death. It would also be seen that the
deceased sustained only single injury on the head, as would be
apparent from the evidence of P.W. 9 Dr. Lalan Kumar Thakur
and the informant (P.W. 6) sustained simple injuries. This leads
us to a prudent conclusion that the appellants never planned to
commit an act which would cause death of the deceased, hence
this takes away the element of intention of causing death or any
kind of serious bodily injury to the prosecution side.
58. We may also take into consideration the fact that the
appellant no.1 of the first case has remained in custody for about
10 years while the appellants of the second case have also
remained in custody for more than 5 years, though they are on
bail at the moment, apart from the fact that the appellants of the
aforesaid two appeals have also suffered the rigors of trial for a
substantially long period. Thus, taking into account an overall
perspective of the entire case, as indicated hereinabove, as also
considering the fact that the appellant of the first case, who had
assaulted by kudaal (hoe) has remained in custody for about 10
years and appellants of the second case, who are alleged to have
inflicted simple injuries upon the informant, have remained in
custody for more than 5 years, apart from the fact that we have
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1289 of 2017 dt.16-05-2025
65/65
already convicted the appellants under Section 304(II) of the
I.P.C, we deem it fit and proper to sentence the appellants, for
the altered conviction to the period of sentence already
undergone.
59. The appellant of the first case, namely Brahmdeo Yadav,
who is in custody, is directed to be released from jail forthwith
unless required in any other case.
60. As far as the appellants of the second case, namely Sudhu
Yadav and Awadesh Yadav are concerned, since they are on bail,
they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.
61. Accordingly, the aforesaid two appeals bearing Criminal
Appeal (DB) No.1289 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal (DB)
No.1282 of 2017 are partly allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
I agree
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
sonal/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 27.03.2025 Uploading Date 17.05.2025 Transmission Date 17.05.2025
[ad_2]
Source link