Skip to content


State of Bihar Vs. Kuldip Yadav and Ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantState of Bihar
RespondentKuldip Yadav and Ors.
Excerpt:
.....p.s. case no. 19 of 1991, whereby the accused/respondents have not been found guilty for the charges framed against them and, hence, they have been acquitted from the charged framed against them.3. the prosecution story based on fardbeyan given by the informant yogendra thakur (since dead) to s.i. g.n. mishra on 01.03.1991 at about 5.00 a.m. in village phasiya tikar, in brief, is that there was a long standing land dispute between the accused devendra choudhary and paltu yadav, for that several litigations cropped up and accused kuldip yadav had lodged case for commission of dacoity, against the informant yogendra thakur, for which he had gone to jail in the said case. therefore, the whole village got divided into two factions. on 28.02.1991 at about 3 p.m, all the 13 named accused.....
Judgment:

1 Govt. Appeal No. 7 of 1994 Against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.10.1993 passed by Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, 2nd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1993/5 of 1993. …..... The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... Appellant. Versus 1. Kuldip Yadav, 2. Levan Yadav 3. Dinesh Yadav 4. Bouki Yadav 5. Sitaram Yadav 6. Karu Yadav, 7. Dhani Yadav 8. Rameshwar Yadav, 9. Debu Yadav, 10. Upender Yadav, 11. Devender Chaudhary @ Deo Nandan Chy.

12. Jay Prakash @ Jai Prakash Choudhary …............................. Respondents. ------ PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFIP KUMAR MOHANTY, A.C.J.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P. For the Respondents : M/s K.P. Deo & Vikash Kumar, Advocates. …...... By the Court: Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. for the appellant and Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Govt. appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.10.1993 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Godda, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 7 of 1993/5 of 1993, arising out of Mahagama P.S. Case No. 19 of 1991, whereby the accused/respondents have not been found guilty for the charges framed against them and, hence, they have been acquitted from the charged framed against them.

3. The prosecution story based on fardbeyan given by the informant Yogendra Thakur (since dead) to S.I. G.N. Mishra on 01.03.1991 at about 5.00 A.M. In village Phasiya Tikar, in brief, is that there was a long standing land dispute between the accused Devendra Choudhary and Paltu Yadav, for that several litigations cropped up and accused Kuldip Yadav had lodged case for commission of dacoity, against the informant Yogendra Thakur, for which he had gone to jail in the said case. Therefore, the whole village got divided into two factions. On 28.02.1991 at about 3 P.M, all the 13 named accused persons, namely, Kuldeep Yadav, 2 Rameshwar Yadav, Bindeshwary Yadav, Dhani Yadav, Bouki Yadav, Sitaram Yadav, Karu Yadav, Debu Yadav, Upender Yadav, Jai Prakash Choudhary, Devendra Choudhary, Levan Yadav and Dinesh Yadav, variously armed with Bhala, Gandasa & Chhura (sharp cutting weapon) came to village- Phasiya Tikar from village- Sirasa hurling abusing words, they tried to assault Paltu Yadav and Kishan Yadav. At that time informant's 50 years old father Rameshwar Thakur was proceeding to fetch water from well. Rameshwar Thakur was assaulted by fist and kick and accused Dinesh Yadav and Levan Yadav gave knife and bhala blow to him resulting in the death. The informant witnessed the occurrence. He has further stated that out of fear he did not go to police station instantly for giving the intimation.

4. On the basis of the said Fard-beyan, a case being Mahagama P.S. Case No. 19 of 1991 was registered under section 147,148,149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused/respondents and after submission of charge sheet, cognizance was taken under the aforesaid sections and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges were framed against accused/ respondent nos. 1,2 and 3, namely, Kuldeep Yadav, Leven Yadav and Dinesh Yadav under sections 302/148 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused, namely, Kuldeep Yadav, Levan Yadav, Dinesh Yadav, Bouki Yadav, Sita Ram Yadav, Karu Yadav, Dhani Yadav, Bindeshwary Yadav, Rameshwar Yadav, Upendra Yadav, Dabu Yadav, Devendra Yadav and Jay Prakash Yadav were charged under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused, namely, Bouki Yadav,Sita Ram Yadav, Karu Yadav, Dhani Yadav, Bindeshwary Yadav, Rameshwar Yadav, Upendra Yadav, Dabu Yadav, Devendra Yadav and Jay Prakash Yadav were further charged under sections 302/149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. In order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused/ respondents the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha, P.W.2 Shankar Prasad Yadav, P.W.3 Paltu Prasad Yadav, P.W.4 Putul Devi, P.W.5 Pairu Yadav and P.W.6 Gajodhar Nath Mishra. Out of the aforesaid 6 witnesses, P.W.4 happens to be eye witness and the wife of the informant, P.W.1 is the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Rameshwear Thakur, P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer of the case, whereas P.W.2,3 and 5, who are the co-villagers, claimed to be the eye witnesses of the case.

6. During the trial one of the accused died.

7. The trial Court after conclusion of trial has acquitted all the accused persons,namely, Kuldeep Yadav, Levan Yadav, Dinesh Yadav, Bouki Yadav,Sita 3 Ram Yadav, Karu Yadav, Dhani Yadav, Bindeshwary Yadav, Rameshwar Yadav, Upendra Yadav, Dabu Yadav, Devendra Yadav and Jay Prakash Yadav of the charges framed against them under sections 302,323,148,147 and 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges framed against all the accused-persons beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, all the accused persons are entitled to get benefits of doubt.

8. During course of this Govt. Appeal three of the appellants, namely, appellant no.7 Dhani Yadav, appellant no. 9 Debu Yadav and appellant no.11 Devender Yadav had died and the appeal against them stood abated.

9. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. assailed the judgment of the learned trial Court on the ground that the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court is against the evidence of the witnesses available on record. He further submits that the evidence of the eye witnesses, P.W. 2,3,4 and 5, are very clear and supports the prosecution case. He further submits that the medical evidence corroborates the ocular evidence. Therefore, it is a fit case to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and this Government appeal is fit to be allowed.

10. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the accused-respondents at the very out set submits that in this case as many as 13 accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial Court, but no Govt. appeal has been preferred against accused no.8, Bindeshwari Yadav, although he is alive. Learned counsel further submits that there is no illegality or infirmity committed by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondents of the charges framed against them. He further submits that there are several lacuna and contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 2,3,4 and 5 , who claim to be the eye witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses do not tally with the medical evidence. He further submits that P.Ws. 2,3 and 4 belong to one family and are interested witnesses. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them, giving the benefits of doubt.

11. On considering the evidence of P.W.2 Shankar Prasad Yadav, it reveals that there are major contradictions in the evidence of above witness. He has developed the prosecution story in his statement given in the Court from the earlier statement given before the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. P.W.3 Paltu Prasad Yadav also admitted that there is long standing land dispute between him and father of the accused/respondents. P.W.4 Putul Devi, who happens to be the daughter-in-law of the deceased, claims to be the eye witness to the alleged occurrence. She also developed the story in Court during her examination. P.W. 5 Peru Yadav is a co- villager and claims to be the eye witness. In his cross-examination, he has also 4 admitted that he saw the occurrence far away from the spot. P.W.6, Investigating Officer also admitted that all the witnesses P.Ws. 2,3,4 and 5 were inimical to the accused-respondents and the statement of the witnesses are not consistent to each other, more so in respect of the manner of occurrence. Considering the medical evidence of Doctor (P.W.1) it reveals that it does not tally with the ocular evidence. Therefore, it is obvious that all the ocular witnesses are interested and inimical with the accused-respondents and they have given distinct version of occurrence. Their testimonies are not corroborated by the Doctor and Investigating Officer. There is grave conflict between the ocular and medical evidence, besides this there was admitted long standing land dispute between the parties.

12. In view of the above discussions, we find that the trial Court has rightly come to a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled against all the accused-persons beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore,all the accused persons are entitled to get benefits of doubt and, accordingly acquitted all the accused persons, namely, Kuldeep Yadav, Levan Yadav, Dinesh Yadav, Bouki Yadav, Sita Ram Yadav, Karu Yadav, Dhani Yadav, Bindeshwary Yadav, Rameshwar Yadav, Upendra Yadav, Dabu Yadav, Devendra Yadav and Jay Prakash Yadav, of the charges framed against them under sections 302,323,148,147 and 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. We do not find any illegality or infirmity committed by the learned trial Court in acquitting the accused-respondents of the above charges levelled against them, which requires no interference by this Court in the instant Govt. appeal.

13. In view of the discussion made above, this Govt. appeal is dismissed. (Pradip Kumar Mohanty,A.C. J.) ( Ananda Sen, J.) High Court of Jharkhand Dated 26th October, 2016 Sharma/Anu/-NAFR


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //