Patna High Court
Rajendra Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.558 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2011 Thana- AANDAR District- Siwan
======================================================
Rajendra Yadav Son Of Late Chandeswar Yadav Resident Of Village-
Kajipatia, Ps- Hasanpura, Distt- Siwan, State- Bihar
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chandrama Singh Son Of Radha Kishun Singh @ Radhakrishna Singh
Resident of Village- Kajipatiyanw, Ps- Andar (M.H. Nagar), Distt- Siwan,
State - Bihar
3. Vinod Singh Son Of Krishnanand Singh Resident of Village- Kajipatiyanw,
PS- Andar (M.H. Nagar), Distt- Siwan, State - Bihar
4. Srikrishna Singh @ Shri Krishna Singh Son of Late Hawaladar Singh
Resident Of Village- Kajipatiyanw, PS- Andar (M.H. Nagar), Distt- Siwan,
State - Bihar
5. Rajesh Yadav Son Of Parshuram Yadav Resident of Village- Kajipatiyanw,
PS- Andar (M.H. Nagar), Distt- Siwan, State - Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Amit Narayan, Advocate
Mr. Ketan Dayal, Advocate
Mr. Abhigyan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
For the Respondent Nos.2,3&4: Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sitesh Kashyap, Advocate
Mr. Md. Dilshad Alam, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 21-01-2025
This appeal has been preferred by the informant for
setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 30.01.2023 passed by
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII, Siwan
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
2/41
(hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial court') in Sessions Trial
No.171 of 2012 arising out of Andar (M.H. Nagar) P.S. Case
No.50 of 2011. The private respondents in this case were facing
charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and
307/149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). In ultimate
analysis of the evidence available on the record, the learned trial
court has been pleased to hold and declare that there is no reliable
and acceptable evidence on the record to prove the prosecution
case beyond all reasonable doubts, hence, all the accused persons
who were facing charges have been acquitted.
2. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of one
Rajdeo Yadav, son of late Chandaswar Yadav of village-Kajipatia,
P.S. Hasanpura in the district of Siwan recorded by Sub-Inspector
of police Md. Mumtaj Alam of Town Police Station, Siwan on
02.05.2011
at 21.15 hours at Sadar Hospital, Siwan. In his
fardbeyan, Rajdeo Yadav (hereinafter called the ‘informant’)
alleged that on 02.05.2011 at about 5.30 PM when he was taking
bath in his house after finishing the agricultural work and his elder
brother Pokhraj Yadav was coming with plant bundle from the
field, in the meantime, his co-villagers Chandrama Singh, son of
Radha Kishun Singh, Rajesh Yadav, son of Parsuram Yadav, Sri
Krishna Singh, son of late Hawaldar Singh, Binod Singh, son of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
3/41
Sri Krishnanand Singh, Govinda Singh, son of Hari Kishun Singh
came there and stated that his family members did not cast their
votes in their favour in the election in which Sri Krishna Singh
was contesting the election for the member of Zila Parishad and
Poonam Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav was also contesting the
election to the post of Mukhiya and for that reason all the accused
persons attacked on his house. It is alleged that Chandrama Singh
and Rajesh Yadav gave lathi blow on the head of his brother
Pokhraj Yadav due to which he suffered injuries on his head and
other parts of the body and he fell down. Sri Krishna Singh,
Hawaldar Singh and Govinda Singh assaulted the informant by
lathi on his head and other parts of the body due to which he
suffered injury on his head and fell down. Binod Singh assaulted
the informant’s elder brother Rajendra Yadav by lathi. It is further
alleged that on hulla when the villagers assembled there, all the
accused persons fled away. Thereafter, the informant’s elder
brother Pokhraj Yadav was taken to hospital for treatment with the
help of villagers where Pokhraj Yadav died in course of treatment.
3. Upon investigation of the case, police submitted a
charge-sheet against five accused persons out of whom one
Govind was declared juvenile and he faced the enquiry before the
Juvenile Justice Board. The four remaining accused who were
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
4/41
charge-sheeted faced trial in the present case. The prosecution
adduced oral as well as documentary evidences whereas the
defence examined two witnesses and placed on record some
documents which are the certified copy of the FIR bearing Andar
(M.H. Nagar) P.S. Case No.51 of 2011 dated 03.05.2011 registered
as a counter case of the instant matter lodged by Chandrama Singh
(hereinafter called Exhibit- ‘A’), certified copy of the charge-sheet
bearing no.53/2011 dated 30.06.2011 filed on completion of the
investigation in Andar (M.H. Nagar) P.S. Case No.51/2011 dated
03.05.2011 (Exhibit- ‘B’) and Exhibit- ‘C’ which is the injury
report of the injured Chandrama Singh issued on 03.05.2011 by
the Dr. M.R.H. Siddiqui, C.M.O., P.H.C., Andar, Siwan. The
treatment related documents of Chandrama Singh in jail have also
been marked as Exhibit -X, Y, Y/1 and Y/2 for identification. The
description of the witnesses and the Exhibits marked on behalf of
the parties are fully described hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution witnesses
PW-1 Rajendra Yadav
PW-2 Kapil Kumar Yadav
PW-3 Jinsha Devi
PW-4 Rinku Kumari
PW-5 Ramawati Devi
PW-6 Rajesh Yadav
PW-7 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Thakur
PW-8 Ashok Kumar Ray
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
5/41List of Exhibits
Exhibit-1 The Postmortem report of the deceased Pokhraj Yadav
Exhibit-2 The injury report of the injured informant Rajdev Yadav
Exhibit-2/1 The injury report of the injured Rajendra Yadav
Exhibit-3 The writing and signature of police sub-inspector namely
Md. Mumtaj Alam on the fardbeyan of the informant
Rajdev Yadav
Exhibit-3/1 The writing and signature on endorsement of registration
of FIR by SHO
Exhibit-4 Inquest report of the dead body of Pokhraj Yadav
Exhibit-5-5/1 Wiring and signature of Md. Mumtaj Alam, S.I. of police
on the injury requisition of the injured namely Rajendra
Yadav and Rajdev YadavDefence Witnesses
DW-1 Dr. Devesh
DW-2 Dr. Manoj KumarList of Exhibits
Exhibit-A Certified copy of FIR bearing Andar (M.H.
Nagar) P.S. Case No.51/2011 dated
03.05.2011 registered as a counter case
lodged by Chandrama Singh
Exhibit-B Certified copy of Charge-sheet bearing
no.53/2011 dated 30.06.2011 filed on
completion of the investigation in Andar
(M.H. Nagar) P.S. Case No.51/2011
Exhibit-C Injury report of the injured Chandrama Singh
Exhibit-X, Y, Y/1 and Treatment descriptions of Chandrama Singh
Y/2 in jailFindings of the learned trial court
4. The learned trial court went through the oral
testimonies of the prosecution as well as defence witnesses and the
exhibits marked on behalf of the parties. It has been found that in
the present case the material witnesses PW-1 to PW-6 are all close
relatives of the deceased Pokhraj Yadav. From the FIR and the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
6/41fardbeyan of the informant Rajdeo Yadav which has been marked
Exhibit-3, the learned trial court came to a conclusion that the
motive behind the occurrence is non casting of votes in local
election as the informant’s family did not cast their votes in favour
of the accused Sri Krishna Singh who was contesting the election
for the member of Zila Parishad and also in favour of Poonam
Devi contesting the election to the post of Mukhiya in Panchayat
Election. The trial court, however, is of the view that in this case
since the prosecution relies upon the direct evidence of PW-1 to
PW-6, the motive has got no relevance and it would not be
material in the present case.
5. The learned trial court found that according to the
prosecution witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased and
the injured namely Rajdeo Yadav (PW-6) and Rajendra Yadav
(PW-1) and their statements would go to show that the local
villagers such as Santosh, Nomi Yadav, Prabhawati Devi, Chameli
Devi, Nitesh Singh, Jitesh Singh, Kailash Singh and Santosh Singh
had gathered at the time of occurrence and there were so many
independent witnesses present at the spot of crime but the
prosecution had not examined any of them as an independent
witness and no reason for their non-examination has been
assigned.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
7/41
6. In order to rule out any possibility of tainted evidence
adduced in the court during trial and to determine as to whether the
deposition of PW-1 to PW-6 are consistent and free from
infirmities, the learned trial court went through the deposition of
the prosecution witnesses. It has been held that PW-1 Rajendra
Yadav had no exact information of the occurrence and the
statement given by him in his cross-examination is against the FIR
and paradoxical to other prosecution witnesses also and his
presence at the place of occurrence appears to be doubtful.
Inconsistent statements were sufficient to impeach his credibility.
7. As regards the place of occurrence, the learned trial
court has examined the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
such as PW-6 Rajdeo Yadav, PW-1 Rajendra Yadav, PW-2
Kapildev Yadav, PW-3 Jinsha Devi, PW-4 Rinku Devi and PW-5
Ramawati Devi. It has been found that these witnesses have not
stated with respect to taking bath of the informant Rajdeo Yadav
and Pokhraj Yadav’s coming to house from the field with plant
bundle while the accused persons came to the informant’s house
i.e. at the place of occurrence. The learned trial court found that
the facts described in the FIR are not consistent in the evidence led
by the prosecution.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
8/41
8. The learned trial court has further found that in this
case the fardbeyan of the informant (Exhibit-3) is in the writing
and signature of S.I. Mumtaj Alam of Town police station, Siwan.
He had prepared the inquest report (Exhibit-4) and its first column
is blank and with respect to this blankness of first column of the
inquest report of the deceased Pokhraj Yadav, PW-8 Ashok Kumar
Ray as admitted in his cross-examination that no information was
given by the witnesses of the inquest report as to how the
deceased’s death was caused and the witnesses of the inquest
report, namely, Kapil Kumar Yadav and Rajendra Yadav have been
examined in this matter as prosecution witness but the officer,
namely Md. Mumtaj Alam of Town police station has not been
examined by the prosecution during the trial.
9. The learned trial court disbelieved PW-3 Jinsha Devi
who is wife of the deceased after taking note of her statement in
paragraph ‘8’ of her cross-examination where she has admitted
about fleeing away of Chandrama Singh when she arrived at the
crime spot and in paragraph ’11’ she has also admitted about her
immediate arrival at her home soon thereafter. She has also
claimed herself to be Pardanasin Lady. PW-4 Rinku Kumari who
is daughter of Rajendra Yadav has deposed in support of the
prosecution case but in her cross-examination she has stated that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
9/41
Rajesh Yadav had assaulted on the head of Pokhraj Yadav while he
was cleaning his hand at the hand pump.
10. The defence pleaded that death of Pokhraj Yadav
was caused accidentally as he was fell down on the handle of hand
pump and suffered injury which resulted in his death. The learned
trial court found that PW-4 Rinku Kumari speaks about washing
his hand at hand pump by Pokhraj Yadav at the time of incident
and PW-8 who conducted the investigation of the case has deposed
that the place of occurrence is near the house of the informant and
it is the land where hand pump and guava tree were in existence.
He has stated in his cross-examination in paragraph ’21’ about
quarrel between both the parties at the place of occurrence and
such statement of quarrel between both the parties have been given
by villagers, namely, Mahesh Singh and Ram Ekbal Bhagat
present at the crime spot whose statements have been recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer (PW-8) but
these two witnesses who are direct witnesses have not been
examined by the prosecution side during the trial. The learned trial
court was of the view that by not producing these two direct
witnesses, serious prejudice has been caused to the defence and it
has resulted in impairing the credibility of the prosecution case. In
ultimate analysis, it has been held that the place of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
10/41
occurrence/crime spot has been shifted by the prosecution
witnesses from one place to another and there has been no crime
spot map/sketch map prepared during investigation of the case.
The witnesses deposed about falling of blood at the place of
occurrence but the I.O. (PW-8) has stated in his cross-examination
that he did not find any blood or any sign of crime being
committed at the crime spot while making an inspection of the
crime spot. This shifting of crime spot from one place to another
place creates doubt with regard to place of occurrence.
11. The learned trial court has considered Exhibit-A
which is the counter case instituted by the defence that the
occurrence had taken place on 02.05.2011 at 6.00 PM at
‘Brahm Asthan’ in village Kajipatiyanw. The learned trial court
found that the counter case was lodged by Chandrama Singh
against the prosecution party and Chandrama Singh had also
sustained injury which is Exhibit ‘C’ and after his arrest in the
present case his treatment was done in jail as per deposition of
DW-2 Dr. Manoj Kumar who is the jail doctor and with respect to
his treatment, the medical documents have also been marked as
Exhibit-‘X’, ‘Y’, ‘Y/1’ and ‘Y/2’ respectively. The learned trial
court found that the FIR (Exhibit-‘3’) and the Exhibit ‘A’ are two
different versions of the same incident resulting in two criminal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
11/41
cases which are case and counter case arising out of one affair and
each party in both the FIR has represented himself as having been
innocent.
12. As discussed above, the learned trial court having
examined the entire evidence on the record reached to a conclusion
that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond all
reasonable doubts.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
13. In appeal before us, learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the learned trial court could not appreciate the
evidences brought on the record by the prosecution. There are
some admitted facts such as death of the deceased and
identification of the body of deceased in the postmortem report. It
is also submitted that there are some undisputed facts of the
prosecution which are (1) deceased was taken to hospital on
02.05.2011 in the evening (2) the place from where the deceased
was taken to the hospital (3) the vehicle in which the deceased was
taken to the hospital (4) the persons who took the deceased to the
hospital and (5) the treatment of deceased in Sadar Hospital,
Siwan. Learned counsel has taken us through the various
paragraphs of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses to
submit that those oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
12/41
would establish the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubts.
It has been submitted that the injury reports of Rajendra Yadav
(PW-1) and Rajdeo Yadav (PW-6) are very relevant. They are
injured witnesses of this case and their testimonies cannot be
discarded only because they happened to be closely related to the
deceased. In his submissions, learned counsel has submitted that
the fact that the defence has lodged a counter case of the same
occurrence would go a long way to show that the occurrence had
taken place.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal and
Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2017) 3 SCC (Cri)
854; Juman and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2017) 3
SCC (Cri) 847; Susanta Das & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa reported
in (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 287; Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana
reported in (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 710; Nand Kumar Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh reported in 2015 (1) SCC 776; Rishiraj @ Tutul
Mukharjee & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in AIR
2022 (SC) 2427 and Harendra Rai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
reported in AIR 2023 (SC) 4331. In course of hearing, however,
learned counsel has mainly submitted that in the case of Iqbal
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the moot
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
13/41
question is as to whether there was common objective, if that is
proved, then, in any case, the separate roles played by all the
accused persons need not be examined as all the members of
unlawful assembly would be vicariously liable for the acts done by
the said assembly. It is submitted that in the present case, the
prosecution witnesses have deposed that the accused persons came
at the place of occurrence and they assaulted the deceased as well
as the two prosecution witnesses who have deposed as PW-1 and
PW-6.
15. Learned counsel submits that in the case of Juman
and Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where
the prosecution witnesses have vividly deposed about genesis of
the occurrence, participation and involvement of the accused
persons in crime, non-examination of witnesses, who might have
been there, would not make the prosecution case unacceptable.
Submission is that conviction can be based on testimony of sole
witness, if the same inspires confidence and evidence of interested
witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground of enmity with
implicated persons.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4
16. The appeal has been contested by learned counsel for
the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
14/41
17. Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2 to 4, submits that in this case, the genesis of
occurrence as stated in the FIR has not been proved by the
prosecution witnesses. Contrary to the FIR, the witnesses have
given a totally different story about how the occurrence took place.
The improvement, contradiction and omission would go to the root
of the matter. Some of the material improvements and
contradictions made by the prosecution witnesses have been
appropriately taken by drawing attention of the witnesses and
putting the same before the I.O. Attention of this Court has been
drawn towards various paragraphs of the deposition of the
prosecution witnesses.
18. It is submitted that in this case, no material has been
brought on record to show that the accused persons had formed an
unlawful assembly rather, it appears that Chandrama Singh was
unaccompanied at the relevant time. Attention of this Court has
been drawn towards paragraph ‘6’ and ‘8’ of the deposition of PW-
3 and paragraph ’75’ of the deposition of PW-6.
19. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
prosecution in this case has not proved the place of occurrence
beyond all reasonable doubts. According to him, the place of
occurrence is not the door of the informant. In this connection, he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
15/41
has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph ‘9’ and
’11’ of PW-3, paragraph ’15’, ’17’, ’18’ and ’25’ of PW-5,
paragraph ’26’, ’27’ and ’74’ of PW-6 and paragraph ’17’ of PW-8.
20. Learned counsel further submits that in this case, the
prosecution witnesses have suppressed the genesis of the
occurrence in material terms. Their testimony becomes unsafe to
rely upon and their version can be discarded if independent
witnesses were withheld by the prosecution. It is submitted that
though examination of independent witnesses is not a sine qua non
for proving guilt of the accused, the fact remains that in the present
case, the prosecution witnesses have stated about gathering of
villagers at the alleged time of incident but none of them has been
examined. Prosecution has given up independent charge-sheet
witnesses, namely, Mahesh Singh and Ram Ekbal Bhagat without
assigning any reason. He has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnegowda and Ors.
Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2017 SC 1657
(paragraph ’20’, ’21’, ’25’, ’26’ and ’30’).
21. Learned counsel submits that in this case, the
accused-respondent no.2, namely Chandrama Singh sustained
grievous injury. The injury report dated 02.05.2011 prepared at
Andar Primary Health Centre at 10:00 PM and other treatment
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
16/41
papers have been brought on record. The order dated 04.05.2011
of the learned Magistrate remanding Chandrama Singh to custody
would show that while recording his injuries on his head and leg,
the learned Magistrate directed for his medical treatment. The I.O.
(PW-8) has deposed in paragraph ’14’ of his testimony that
Chandrama Singh was in an injured condition when he was
arrested on 03.05.2011. DW-1 and DW-2 have proved that
grievous injuries were sustained by Chandrama Singh for which he
has received treatment during his custody. It is submitted that the
failure/denial of the prosecution witnesses to explain the grievous
injuries inflicted upon the accused-respondent no. 2 could raise a
serious doubt over the veracity of the prosecution witnesses who
are the family members of the informant. In this regard, learned
counsel has referred paragraph ‘4’ of PW-1, paragraph ‘4’, ’14’,
’15’ and ’32’ of PW-2, paragraph ‘5’ of PW-3, paragraph ’10’, ’11’
and ’14’ of PW-4, paragraph ‘8’ of PW-5 and paragraph ’35’ and
’36’ of PW-6 to submit that all these witnesses have denied and
failed to explain the grievous injury over the person of Chandrama
Singh which would suggest that these witnesses are trying to
suppress the real fact. The witnesses are suppressing the
genesis/vital part of the occurrence, therefore, it would be
hazardous to place reliance on the testimony of such witnesses
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
17/41
who are lying on material particulars. In this regard, learned
counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in
(1976) 4 SCC 394, Babu Ram vs. State of Punjab reported in
AIR 2006 SC 1260 and State of Rajasthan vs. Madho & Ors.
reported in AIR 1991 SC 1065. It is further submitted that PW-1
and PW-6 cannot be put in the category of injured witnesses. The
Doctor (PW-7) has clarified in his deposition that the injury to
PW-1 Rajendra Yadav was not caused on the same day and time of
injuries to Rajdev Yadav (PW-6) and Pukhraj Yadav (the
deceased). The age of injury of PW-1 was stated to be within 72
hours. In such circumstance, it is submitted that it further clouds
the authenticity of the prosecution version and renders their
evidence unreliable.
Submission on behalf of Respondent No.5
22. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondent
no. 5 has further strengthened the submissions of learned counsel
representing respondent nos. 2 to 4. It is submitted that the
prosecution witnesses are not reliable. The informant (PW-6) has
improved upon his earlier version in the fardbeyan only to fall in
line with the postmortem report of the deceased. The definite
prosecution case has been given a complete go by. Learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
18/41
counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Md. Yunus reported in
AIR 2024 SC 579 (paragraph ’17’) to submit that when the
statements of the prosecution witnesses are contrary, facts are
twisted and improvements are made, no reliance can be made upon
such statement.
23. Learned counsel has further relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harijana
Thirupala & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad reported in AIR 2002 SC 2821 (paragraph ’15’) and
Jaikam Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2021) 13
SCC 716 (paragraph ’69’). He has also relied upon Section 114(g)
of the Indian Evidence Act to submit that the evidence which
could be and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable
to the person who withholds it, this Court may draw an adverse
inference from the fact that two independent charge-sheet
witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution.
24. Learned counsel submits that so far as respondent
no. 5 Rajesh is concerned, the prosecution has not proved motive
against him. PW-1 has stated that wife of Rajesh Yadav had never
come to request to vote for her. At the same time, there are reasons
for his false implication. In this connection, it would appear from
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
19/41
paragraph ‘3’ of the deposition of PW-1 that grandmother of
Rajesh had got property of her father in the village where Rajesh
had settled down. Her maternal grandfather was a co-sharer of the
informant. PW-6 was suggested in course of his evidence that
Rajesh was falsely implicated due to land dispute.
25. Learned counsel has further pointed out that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the place of occurrence
in this case. While PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6 have stated that blood
had fallen at the door of the house or on road, the I.O. (PW-8) has
given the description of the place of occurrence as the Sahan
Jameen of the informant. PW-8 did not find any blood or any
incriminating material indicating commission of crime at the place
of occurrence. The inquest report (Exhibit ‘4’) was prepared by
S.I. Mumtaz Alam, who has not been examined. Column ‘6’ of
Exhibit ‘4’ has not been filled up. It is submitted that acquittal of
an accused strengthens the presumption of innocence. He has
relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of H.D. Sundara and Others vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 wherein the principles governing an
appeal against acquittal have been reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
20/41
26. Learned counsel submits that in the present case, the
findings recorded by the learned trial court cannot be said to be
perversed and even if this Court forms a different opinion, the
same need not be substituted in place of the opinion of the learned
trial court.
Submissions on behalf of the State
27. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has endorsed the submissions of learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2 to 5 and has defended the judgment under
appeal. It is submitted that the kind of conclusion reached by the
learned trial court on the basis of the evidence available on the
record, the appellate court may not find it possible to reach to an
irresistible conclusion that the impugned judgment is perversed
and the same would require to be interfered with. Submission is
that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Consideration
28. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the
records, we find that the present case is based on the fardbeyan of
Rajdeo Yadav. He has been examined as PW-6 and in our
considered opinion, he would be the most important witness whose
testimony would be required to be considered at first instance.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
21/41
29. According to him, the occurrence took place on
02.05.2011 at about 5:30 PM when he was taking a bath in his
house after returning from his field. His elder brother Pokhraj
Yadav (since deceased) was returning with the bundle of
crops/plants from the field, in the meantime, the five named
accused persons including respondent nos. 2 to 5 came at the
house of the informant and said that the informant and his persons
had not given vote to him. Shri Krishna Singh was a candidate in
Zila Parishad Election, wife of Rajesh Yadav (Respondent No.5)
was a candidate for Mukhiya post. According to the informant, all
the accused persons together assaulted the informant and his
brother Pokhraj Yadav. Chandrama Singh and Rajesh Yadav both
assaulted Pokhraj on his head and on other parts of his body as a
result whereof he fell down. Informant was assaulted by Shri
Krishna Singh, Hawaldar Singh and Govinda Singh by lathi and
he sustained injury on his head and on other parts of his body
whereafter he fell down. His brother Rajendra Yadav (PW-1) was
assaulted by Vinod Singh by lathi and he also suffered injury on
his body. On hulla, the villagers started assembling whereafter on
seeing them coming, the accused persons fled away. With the help
of the villagers, the injured persons were brought to Sadar
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
22/41
Hospital, Siwan where in course of treatment, Pokhraj Yadav died
and the informant and his brothers were getting treatment.
30. It is evident from the fardbeyan of the informant
(PW-6) that according to him, the place of occurrence is his house
and there was a hand pump where he was taking bath. It is this
place where he along with his brothers were assaulted. The
informant also admits that as a result of the assault, Pokhraj (the
deceased) fell down. In course of trial, PW-6 has changed the
place of occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that
on the date of occurrence, at about 5.30 pm, he was sitting with his
brother at his darwaja. His elder brother Pokhraj and Rajendra
Yadav were also sitting. At this point of time, the accused persons
namely Chandrama, Shri Krishna, Rajesh, Govind and Vinod
came, they were having lathi and they were abusing the informant
for not casting vote in their favour. While in his fardbeyan, the
informant clearly alleged that Chandrama Singh and Rajesh Yadav
both had assaulted Pokhraj Yadav on his head and other parts of
the body but in his examination-in-chief, he has stated that
Chandrama Singh assaulted Pokharaj on his head by lathi and
Rajesh Yadav assaulted Pokhraj on his shoulder. This is an
improvement by PW-6 in course of his evidence in order to fall in
line with the findings of the Doctor in the postmortem report.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
23/41
31. As regards the place of occurrence, there are vital
differences in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. PW-3,
who is wife of the deceased, has stated that the place of occurrence
is a PCC road which is made of brick and there was plaster on the
bricks. She was in the house and she is a pardanashin lady. She
came to the place of occurrence but she did not stop there. In
paragraph ‘6’ of her deposition, she has stated that on the
shoutings of Chandrama Singh, Sri Krishna, Govind, Vinod and
two other persons came. Rajesh also came. She has stated that she
was not aware of the case lodged by Chandrama Singh. ‘Braham
Asthan’ is at a distance of 10/15 steps and the house of Chandrama
Singh is at a distance of less than 200 steps. According to this
witness, blood had fallen at the place of occurrence and it had
spread around one hand. This witness was suggested by defence
that there was a deadly attack on Chandrama Singh in which he
had received injury but she had suppressed this fact and came to
falsely depose. In fact, it has been noticed by this Court that in
paragraph ‘5’ of her deposition, PW-3 has stated that she had seen
Chandrama Singh at the place of occurrence but denied the
suggestion that his head was fractured. She has stated that
Chandrama Singh had not received any injury. It is with reference
to this deposition of PW-3 that it has been contended before us and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
24/41
we agree with the same that this witness being wife of the
deceased is suppressing the fact that Chandrama Singh was badly
injured in the said occurrence. The witness becomes an interested
witness and it would not be safe to rely upon her testimony. We
find from the evidence of PW-3 that she has given a different place
of occurrence and manner of occurrence. It is also found from her
evidence that all the accused persons had not come together as
alleged by PW-6 and it was only after Chandrama Singh
(respondent no.2) shouted, the other persons had assembled.
32. The another witness who has deposed on the point of
place of occurrence is Ramavati Devi (PW-5) who is the daughter-
in-law of the deceased. According to her deposition, her father-in-
law Pokhraj Yadav, Rajendra Yadav, Rajdev and Kapil Muni were
sitting at their darwaja where the occurrence took place but in her
cross-examination, she has stated in paragraph ’15’ that she had
not seen the PCC road but she had seen the blood fallen on the
same and the blood was spread on road at a distance of two steps.
She has also stated in paragraph ’16’ that she had seen ‘Braham
Baba’ place which is adjacent to the road and the way of the
accused persons are the said PCC road. She has stated that at the
time when hulla was raised, lighting had not taken place in the
village. From the deposition of PW-5, it is evident that she has not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
25/41
withstood the test of cross-examination. Initially, she came with
the statement that the occurrence took place at the darwaja but
later on she has stated that she had seen blood fallen on the PCC
road which is adjacent to ‘Brahm Baba Asthan’ and she has also
stated that her house is situated at a distance of five laggi (one
laggi is equivalent to three and half hand) from ‘Brahm Baba
Asthan’.
33. The I.O. (PW-8) has proved the fardbeyan which
was recorded by Md. Mumtaz Alam (not examined) and the same
has been marked Exhibit ‘3’. He has proved the endorsement made
by him on the fardbeyan. He had sent the same to Andar Police
Station where ASI Satyanarayan Pal had made endorsement for the
second time on the same. He has proved signature of ASI
Satyanarayan Pal which has been marked ‘Exhibit 3/1’. He has
deposed that the inquest report of Pokhraj Yadav was prepared by
Md. Mumtaz Alam on which Kapil Kumar Yadav and Rajendra
Yadav are the witnesses. This has been marked Exhibit ‘4’. He had
visited the place of occurrence. In paragraph ‘3’, he has stated that
the place of occurrence is the sahan land near the house of the
informant where there is a hand pump and a tree of guava. As per
his description of the place of occurrence, in east there is a land of
the informant and his house, in west there is Hasanpura and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
26/41
Raghunathpur Road, in north is house of Vijay Sah and in south
there is a parti land of the road. He had recorded the statement of
witnesses Rajendra Yadav, Rajdev Yadav, Kapil Kumar, Rinku
Kumari, Prabhavati Devi, Jinsa Devi and Ramavati Devi at the
place of occurrence. He had received the injury report of the
injured Rajdev Yadav and Rajendra Yadav on 04.05.2011 and had
also received the postmortem report of Pokhraj. It is important to
note that in his examination-in-chief, PW-8 has stated that he had
recorded the statement of independent witnesses Mahesh Singh
and Ram Iqbal Singh and they are charge-sheet witnesses of this
case but in course of trial, both the independent witnesses have
been withheld by the prosecution. From the evidence of PW-8, we
find that he has given a different place of occurrence. In his cross-
examination, he has clearly stated that the villager at the place of
occurrence, namely, Mahesh Singh and Ram Iqbal Singh both had
stated that both the parties had a quarrel at the place of occurrence
in which Pokhraj had received injury. The I.O. has stated that he
had arrested Chandrama Singh near Kanhauli village and at that
time, Chandrama Singh was in injured condition, he was returning
from somewhere after receiving treatment and these facts have
been recorded by him in paragraph ’17’ of the case diary.
Chandrama Singh had also lodged a case under Sections 323, 379,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
27/41
504/34 IPC which is mentioned in paragraph ’31’ of the case diary.
The I.O. was suggested that Chandrama Singh was arrested in
course of his treatment in hospital. In paragraph ’17’ of his
deposition, he has stated that at the place of occurrence, he had not
found any blood or any mark of commission of crime.
34. From the deposition of the I.O. (PW-8) it is evident
that he has not supported the prosecution as regards the place of
occurrence and has given altogether a different place where the
occurrence is said to have taken place. He had interrogated
independent witnesses but they have been withheld and the I.O.
clearly says that he had not found any blood mark at the place of
occurrence.
35. At this stage, this Court would discuss the defence
case based on the fardbeyan of Chandrama Singh recorded by ASI
Satyanarayan Pal of Andar Police Station on 03.05.2011 at 13:00
hours at Primary Health Centre, Andar. In his fardbeyan,
Chandrama Singh has alleged that on 02.05.2011 at 6:00 PM,
when he was going from his house to Kajipatiya Bazar by his
bicycle and had reached near ‘Brahm Asthan’ in his village,
Pokhraj Yadav, Son of Chandeshwar Yadav abused him saying that
he had not given vote to Mukhiya candidate Kamlavati Devi, wife
of Late Harendra Singh. On this he asked him to refrain from
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
28/41
abusing whereafter Pokhraj Yadav assaulted him on his head by a
farsa as a result whereof his head was fractured and he started
bleeding. It is alleged that his wrist watch and gold ornament was
snatched and in the meantime, Rajdev Yadav, Rajendra Yadav and
Kapil Yadav reached there. Pokhraj told them “kya dekhte ho,
saale ko jaan maar do”. On this Rajdev Yadav assaulted the
informant on his left leg by iron rod causing fracture of his leg.
Rajendra Yadav and Kapil Yadav assaulted him by lathi and danda
causing injury on his neck and backside. The informant claimed
that he started weeping and crying whereafter neighbours came,
thereafter the accused persons fled away. On the basis of the
fardbeyan, Andar P.S. Case No. 51 of 2011 dated 03.05.2011 was
registered on 03.05.2011 at 17:45 hours. The FIR has been marked
Exhibit ‘A’ on behalf of the defence.
36. Exhibit ‘B’ is the Final Form No. 53 of 2011 dated
30.06.2011 from which it would appear that police chargesheeted
Rajdev Yadav, Rajendra Yadav and Kapil Yadav. Pokhraj Yadav
has been shown deceased, therefore, no charge-sheet has been filed
against him. While Rajdev Yadav has been chargesheeted under
Sections 341 and 323 IPC, Kapil Yadav and Rajendra Yadav were
chargesheeted under Sections 341/323/325/379/504/34 IPC.
Therefore, in course of investigation, the occurrence alleged by
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
29/41
Chandrama Singh has been found true and police had submitted
charge-sheet. According to the defence case, the occurrence took
place near ‘Braham Asthan’ which is situated adjacent to the road.
37. The defence has also proved the injury report of
Chandrama Singh as Exhibit ‘C’. The injury report would show
that Chandrama Singh was examined by Dr. M.R.H. Siddiqui, the
Chief Medical Officer. His signature has been identified by Dr.
Devesh (DW-1) who was also posted at Primary Health Centre,
Andar and had worked with Dr. M.R.H. Siddiqui. On his
identification, the signature of Dr. Siddiqui on the injury report has
been marked Exhibit ‘C’. In his cross-examination, he has stated
that Dr. M.R.H. Siddiqui is now no more. Dr. Manoj Kumar (DW-
2) is the Jail Doctor who brought the X-ray plate and the treatment
slip of Sadar Hospital, Siwan. He has stated that Chandrama Singh
had received treatment in jail as it appears from the documents.
According to the report of the Doctor, Chandrama Singh had
sustained head injury and had stitch on the same, his leg had been
fractured. He proved the OPD Register of the Jail Hospital, the
date of admission of Chandrama Singh in the jail hospital and this
witness has stated that during his incarceration, Chandrama Singh
was in injured condition. He had brought the OPD Register from
jail in the capacity of In-charge.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
30/41
38. From Exhibit ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’, it is evident that
Chandrama Singh had sustained serious injuries in the alleged
occurrence which took place at the ‘Braham Asthan’ but when the
prosecution witnesses were being cross-examined and their
attention was drawn towards the injury sustained by Chandrama
Singh, they simply feigned ignorance and unawareness. PW-1
Rajendra Yadav has stated in paragraph ‘4’ of his deposition that
he had seen Chandrama Singh at the place of occurrence but he
had not seen the injuries on the person of Chandrama Singh. He
has further stated in the same paragraph that he had not seen with
whom Chandrama Singh had come at the place of occurrence and
with whom he had gone from there.
39. The defence while cross-examining Kapil Kumar
Yadav (PW-2) put him specific question with regard to the injuries
on the body of Chandrama Singh. In paragraph ‘4’ of his
deposition, he has stated that he had seen Chandrama Singh at the
place of occurrence but he had not seen blood falling from the
injury sustained by him on his head. He has stated that he had seen
the fractured leg of Chandrama Singh.
40. Jinsa Devi (PW-3) has also admitted in paragraph ‘5’
of her deposition that she had seen Chandrama Singh at the place
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
31/41
of occurrence but she has stated that his head was not injured and
he had not sustained any injury.
41. Rinku Kumari, who is daughter of Rajendra Yadav,
has been examined as PW-4. Her statement was recorded by I.O.
after 2-3 days. She has also stated that she had seen Chandrama
Singh at the place of occurrence but had not seen blood oozing out
of the injury of Chandrama Singh. She has stated that her family
members were east to the soaling. In paragraph ’11’, she has stated
that in her statement before Police, she stated that Pokhraj had
returned from his field and was washing his hand at the hand
pump, she had not stated that he was taking bath at the hand pump.
42. Ramavati Devi (PW-5) is the daughter-in-law of the
deceased, who has also stated that she had seen Chandrama Singh
but she was not aware till date that his head was injured and leg
was fractured.
43. We have noticed from the pattern of cross-
examination of the prosecution witnesses that all of them were
specifically put this question as to the presence of Chandrama
Singh at the place of occurrence and the injury sustained by him
but all the prosecution witnesses who are family members of the
deceased have denied that Chandrama Singh had sustained injury.
These witnesses have failed to explain the grievous injuries over
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
32/41
the person of Chandrama Singh. We would, therefore, agree with
the submissions of learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 that
these witnesses are shying away from the reality and it would raise
serious doubt over the veracity of their statement. In the case of
Lakshmi Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
in paragraph ’11’ inter alia as under.
“……. It is well settled that fouler the crime, higher the
proof, and hence in a murder case where one of the accused
is proved to have sustained injuries in the course of the
same occurrence, the non-explanation of such injuries by
the prosecution is a manifest defect in the prosecution case
and shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had
been deliberately suppressed which leads to the irresistible
conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a
true version of the occurrence. This matter was argued
before the High Court and we are constrained to observe
that the learned Judges without appreciating the ratio of this
Court in Mohar Rai vs. State of Bihar 1968 Cri LJ 1479
tried to brush it aside on most untenable grounds……”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed thus:- “This Court
clearly pointed out that where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries
on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses is untrue: and (2) that the injuries probabilise the
plea taken by the appellants.”
44. In paragraph ’17’ of the judgment, in the case of
Lakshmi Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
one of the most important points arising in a criminal trial is the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
33/41
non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused by the
prosecution.
45. In the case of Babu Ram (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court referred and relied upon the judgment of Lakshmi
Singh (supra) and reiterated paragraph ’18’ that in a murder case,
the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at
about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a
very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the
following inferences:-
“1. that the prosecution has suppressed the
genesis and the origin of the occurrence and
has thus not presented the true version;
2. that the witnesses who have denied the
presence of the injuries on the person of the
accused are lying on a most material point
and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
3. that in case there is a defence version
which explains the injuries on the person of
the accused it is rendered probable so as to
throw doubt on the prosecution case.”
46. In paragraph ’19’ of the judgment, it has been
observed that omission on the part of the prosecution to explain
the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater
importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical
witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in
probability with that of the prosecution one.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
34/41
47. In the present case, we have dealt Exhibit ‘A’, ‘B’
and ‘C’ which give the defence version and in our opinion, the
defence version is competing in probability with that of the
prosecution case. We have found that the prosecution is failing in
establishing the place of occurrence as well as the manner of
occurrence.
48. Now coming to the another submission with regard
to the non-examination of independent witnesses, we find from the
materials on the record that almost all the prosecution witnesses
have stated about presence of large number of villagers who had
assembled at the place of occurrence. PW-1 stated that Chandan
Singh, Nitish Singh, Kailash Singh and Santosh Singh who are the
villagers had come. None of these independent witnesses have
been examined. PW-2 has stated that at the place of occurrence,
the villagers had come and they had taken the injured to the
hospital. PW-4 and PW-5 have also stated about presence of
independent witnesses at the place of occurrence. The I.O. (PW-8)
has stated that he had recorded statement of independent witnesses
Mahesh Singh and Ram Ekbal Bhagat. They were also charge-
sheet witnesses but they have not been examined by the
prosecution. While discussing this aspect of the matter we take
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
35/41
note of Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which
states thus:-
“(g) that evidence which could be and is not
produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to
the person who withholds it”
49. In the case of Krishnegowda (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed in paragraph ’20’ and ’21’ as under:-
“20. Generally in the criminal cases, discrepancies
in the evidence of witness is bound to happen
because there would be considerable gap between
the date of incident and the time of deposing
evidence before the court, but if these
contradictions create such serious doubt in the mind
of the court about the truthfulness of the witnesses
and it appears to the court that there is clear
improvement, then it is not safe to rely on such
evidence.
21. In the case on hand, the evidence of the
eyewitnesses is only consistent on the aspect of
injuries inflicted on the deceased but on all other
factors there are lot of contradictions which go to
the root of the matter.”
Further in paragraph ’25’ and ’26’ of its judgment, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
“25. It is to be noted that all the eyewitnesses were
relatives and the prosecution failed to adduce
reliable evidence of independent witnesses for the
incident which took place on a public road in the
broad daylight. Although there is no absolute rule
that the evidence of related witnesses has to be
corroborated by the evidence of independent
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
36/41witnesses, it would be trite in law to have
independent witnesses when the evidence of related
eyewitnesses is found to be incredible and not
trustworthy. The minor variations and
contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses
will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the
accused but when the contradictions in the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the
prosecution case then those contradictions go to the
root of the matter and in such cases the accused gets
the benefit of doubt.
26. It is the duty of the Court to consider the
trustworthiness of evidence on record. As said by
Bentham, “witnesses are the eyes and ears of
justice”. In the facts on hand, we feel that the
evidence of these witnesses is filled with
discrepancies, contradictions and improbable
versions which draws us to the irresistible
conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses
cannot be a basis to convict the accused.”
50. We find that in the present case even though the
witnesses have stated about presence of independent witnesses
from the village, no independent witness has been examined and
the charge-sheet witnesses who were in the category of
independent witnesses have been withheld, therefore, adverse
inference is liable to be drawn.
51. In the present case, the injury reports of Rajendra
Yadav (PW-1), Rajdev Yadav (PW-6) and Pokhraj Yadav (the
deceased) have been proved by the Doctor (PW-7). The
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
37/41
postmortem report of Pokhraj Yadav is Exhibit ‘1’. The following
antemortem injuries have been found on his person:-
“1. Lacerated Injury size 3″ x 3/4″ x bone deep at lt
parietal region of scalp with crack area with gap of size 1”
x ¼ x” brain deep.
2. swelling size 1½” x 1″ at right (middle region) of
forearm medially.”
52. It is evident that Pokhraj had suffered only one
injury on the vital part of his body caused by hard and blunt
substance. Injury no. 2 of Pokhraj Yadav was not on vital part of
the body and according to PW-7, it is possible due to fall on some
hard surface. About the age of injury, PW-7 has opined that it is
within 6 to 24 hours since death to postmortem.
53. The injury report of Rajdev Yadav has been marked
as Exhibit ‘2’. He had received five injuries on his body which are
as follows:-
“(1) Lac. Injury – Size 2″ x 1/4” x muscle deep
at right parietal region of scalp.
(2) swelling with abrasion size 1″ x 1″ at right
side of abdomen above and anterior superior
iliac on lateral part.
(3) Defuse Swelling with tenderness at left
forearm distally & dorsally.
(4) Two abrasions each of size about ½” x ¼” at
dorsum of left index finger
(5) swelling with tenderness size 3″ x 2 ½ ” at
left lower leg laterally.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
38/41
54. Rajendra Yadav (PW-1) was also examined by
Doctor (PW-7) who found the following injuries on his body:-
(1) abrasion – size ½” x ½ ” at right shoulder.
(2) Swelling size 1″ x 1″ at right parietal region
of scalp.
(3) Diffuse swelling with tenderness at left thigh
laterally.
(4) Diffuse swelling with tenderness at left
distal leg laterally.”
55. All the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard
and blunt substance. So far as injury caused to Rajendra Yadav
(PW-1) is concerned, the Doctor has opined that the injuries
have been caused within 72 hours of the time of examination.
This is Exhibit ‘2/1′. On perusal of the injury reports of the
deceased on the one hand and those of his two brothers PW-1
and PW-6, it appears that the age of injury of Pokhraj and PW-1
is not of the same day. The Doctor (PW-7) has clearly opined in
paragraph ’15’ and ’16’ that the injuries on the body of Rajdev
Yadav (PW-6) and Rajendra Yadav (PW-1) do not seem to be of
same time and of the same day. The injury of Rajendra Yadav
and the deceased Pokhraj Yadav are not of the same day. In
paragraph ’18’ and ’19’ of his deposition, PW-7 has admitted
that he has not mentioned the size of injury no. 3 and 4 of
Rajendra Yadav (PW-1). To this Court, it appears that Exhibit ‘2’
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
39/41
and ‘2/1’ which are injuries reports of PW-6 and PW-1
respectively do not corroborate the prosecution story as alleged
and the prosecution story would become doubtful with regard to
the manner of occurrence and the time of occurrence. Referring
to this situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the
case of Krishnegowda (supra) that “once there is a clear
contradiction between the medical and the ocular evidence
coupled with severe contradictions in the oral evidence and clear
latches in investigation, then the benefit of doubt has to go to the
accused.”
56. As a result of the aforementioned analysis of the
evidences available on the record, this Court is of the considered
opinion that in the present case, the prosecution could not establish
its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned trial court has
analysed the entire evidences on the record and we are satisfied
after re-appreciation of the entire evidences that the findings and
opinion of the learned trial court are not perversed and it would not
require any interference by this Court in appeal.
57. We are conscious of the judicial pronouncements on
the subject while dealing with a case of acquittal, it has been the
view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.D. Sundara
(supra) that the presumption of innocence gets multiplied in case
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
40/41
of an acquittal by the learned trial court and the appellate court
hearing an appeal against acquittal need not interfere with the
same unless the appellate court reaches to an irresistible
conclusion with regard to the guilt of the accused. Paragraph ‘8’ of
the judgment in the case of H.D. Sundara (supra) is being
reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
“8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the
legality and validity of the impugned judgment 1
rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal
against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC“). The
principles which govern the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal under Section 378CrPC can be summarised
as follows:
“8.1. The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an
appeal against acquittal, is entitled to
reappreciate the oral and documentary
evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an
appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating
the evidence, is required to consider whether
the view taken by the trial court is a possible
view which could have been taken on the
basis of the evidence on record;
1. State of Karnataka v. H.K. Mariyapp, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 5591
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.558 of 2023 dt.21-01-2025
41/418.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view was
also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the
order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding
that the only conclusion which can be
recorded on the basis of the evidence on
record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no
other conclusion was possible.”
58. In ultimate analysis, we find no reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment.
59. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
arvind/Rishi-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 27.01.2025 Transmission Date 27.01.2025
[ad_1]
Source link