Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1565 (PAT)

Chaturi Yadav v. State of Bihar

2012-11-22

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2012
ORAL JUDGMENT SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. This case has been referred to Division Bench by the Hon’ble Single Judge on 16.08.2012. We have taken the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of State and have gone through the entire record. 2. Abhimanu Singh, Manohar Singh, Jang Bahadur Singh, Pankaj Singh, Keshav Singh and Murari Singh were charged under Section 302/34 and 201 of the IPC. 3. On 26.08.1989, at village Telia Logain, the informant Anandi Yadav was going to the shop of Kapil Babu and he noticed Abhimanu Singh, Manohar Singh, Jang Bahadur Singh, Pankaj Singh, Keshav Singh and Murari Singh coming with the dead body of his brother Mahendra Yadav. The informant enquired as to how the death has occurred and thereafter he was chased and abused. Villagers went and found the dead body of informant’s brother Mahendra Yadav kept by the side of Telia Logain road near Nala. 4. The informant and his brother were doing milk business and the accused persons have not paid money for milk and on demand they have caused the ghastly murder. The case was investigated into but the charge sheet was submitted under Section 304A, 201/34 of the IPC. After cognizance the case was committed and the trial proceeded. 5. Before the trial court the prosecution examined ten witnesses out of whom P.W. 9 was the doctor who held the autopsy of the dead body. P.Ws. 1, 2, 7, 8 and 10 were examined as material witnesses. 6. The doctor P.W. 9 holding the post-mortem has found the following injuries: (I). Abrasion on the upper part of the neck below the chin. Base was echymosed size 1”x3/4”. (II). Sub-conjunctrivel haemorrhage on both sides the eye lids were blackish. Further injury was : (I). Abrasion on the right side of the neck size 2”x1/4”. (II). Separation of epidermis (a). in front of right leg size 1”x1” (b). in front of left leg size 2”x1” (c). below right nipple size 1”x3/4” (d). dorsal aspect of left hand size 1”x1/2” 7. No external injury except injury no. I was noticed upon the dead body. The death was due to electrocution, shock and haemorrhage. Ante-mortem injury was caused by hard and blunt substance and post-mortem injuries might have been caused during transportation of the dead body. below right nipple size 1”x3/4” (d). dorsal aspect of left hand size 1”x1/2” 7. No external injury except injury no. I was noticed upon the dead body. The death was due to electrocution, shock and haemorrhage. Ante-mortem injury was caused by hard and blunt substance and post-mortem injuries might have been caused during transportation of the dead body. The I.O. while deposing has stated that vide letter no. 5494 of 1989, the A.S.P. has stated for query open about the cause of death and the doctor has reported it that no sign could be found on the dead body if the death is on account of electrocution. 8. The trial court has tried its best to reconcile the statement of material as well as official witnesses but had found a number of serious lacunas. P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were residents of Village Telia Logain and their definite belief was that Mahendra Yadav died due to electrocution. P.W. 2 has stated that there was no injury upon the dead body. The evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 and I.O. P.W. 10 put before the trial court and accordingly the trial court relied upon their deposition. The I.O. while deposing stated that electric wire was found touching the dead body and the I.O. stated that it might be due to touching of electric current. The victim might have fallen down on hard surface and the death might have been caused on account of that. This was the vital aspect of the case which created doubt in the mind of the trial court. 9. The prosecution has to establish its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. If two versions appear in course of evidence then it is well settled that the version showing the innocence of the accused has to be accepted. Similar is happened in the present case. The evidence of material witnesses should have been heavily relied by the prosecution has given a complete go by to the prosecution version of manner of assault. A new version came that the death might have been caused by electrocution. Therefore, the prosecution could not discharge its onus of proving the case that it was a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder and the offence was committed by non else than by the accused themselves. A new version came that the death might have been caused by electrocution. Therefore, the prosecution could not discharge its onus of proving the case that it was a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder and the offence was committed by non else than by the accused themselves. When that gap was missing then the trial court had no opinion but to give judgment against the prosecution and the trial court has accordingly done it. 10. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and analyzing the evidence, we hold that the order of the trial court does not require any interference. 11. In the result, this revision application is held without merit and it is accordingly dismissed.