Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1352 (JHR)

Rajendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2015-10-29

P.P.BHATT, VIRENDER SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Appellant Rajendra Yadav (hereinafter to be referred to as the accused), after suffering conviction, filed the instant appeal in the year 2005 through jail. At that time one Shri Naresh Prasad, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused to assist the Court. When the instant appeal was taken up for its final consideration in August, 2015, the accused went unrepresented and for this reason Ms. Suchitra Pandey was appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused. He is stated to be in custody for the last 16 years. For this reason priority has been given to the instant appeal over and above other appeals. Ms. Pandey has assisted the Court thoroughly. She has taken us to the entire material evidence available on record. 2. Deceased in this case is one Sahdeo Rout husband of P.W.4 Sunita Devi. She happens to be eye-witness to the occurrence. Along with her, P.W.3 brother-in-law, P.W.6 sister-in-law and P.W.5 daughter of the first informant are also the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Accused was allegedly armed with Farsa (sharp-edged weapon) and the injury on the person of the deceased is only one landed on the vital part of the body (parietal region of the scalp) resulting into exposure of the brain tissue. This injury turned out to be fatal. 3. P.W.4 the first informant alleged that on 19th October, 1999 at about 4 p.m. deceased went to his fields to cut the ridge for the purpose of draining out the extra water out of the fields and when he reached near the house of the accused, the accused assaulted him from behind with the Farsa in his hand and caused the injury on his head. P.W.4 along with P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.5 claimed themselves to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The motive, as projected, is that prior to the present occurrence somewhere in the year 1995-96 the deceased and P.W.3 were booked in a case of murder of father of the accused and were facing Sessions Trial No.160 of 1996. The statement of first informant was recorded on 22nd October, 1999 at about 3 p.m. (15 hours) in the concerned Police Station whereupon P.S. Case No.138 of 1999 got registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The statement of first informant was recorded on 22nd October, 1999 at about 3 p.m. (15 hours) in the concerned Police Station whereupon P.S. Case No.138 of 1999 got registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned trial court has believed the eye-version account and convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Ms. Pandey vehemently contended that not only the motive, as projected in the case, happens to be a very stale one for which the accused could not choose a particular day and particular time for killing the deceased, that too in front of his house, whereas the deceased used to go to his fields by crossing his house almost daily, the so-called eye-witnesses now brought forward, in fact, are also not the true witnesses to the occurrence, they being from one family (family of the deceased) only. 6. Learned counsel then submitted that even otherwise there appears to be no reason with the eye-witness to follow the deceased when he was going to his fields as it was not their usual practice, therefore why on a particular day they chose to follow the deceased. 7. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise if one looks at the situs of occurrence, P.W.4 wife of the deceased or the first informant and for that matter any of the prosecution witnesses could not see the accused assaulting the deceased from their houses reason being that the house of the accused is in another lane (Gali) and the house of the deceased is in another adjoining lane and the witnesses could not possibly see the accused inflicting injury on the person of the deceased from their house at least. Learned counsel submitted that otherwise also there are five houses in the adjacent lane where the house of the accused is situated and similarly there are 4-5 houses in the lane where the house of the deceased is situated, therefore all those 8-10 houses were creating obstruction in the vision, therefore it was not practically possible for any of the eye-witnesses to see the occurrence at all. 8. 8. Learned counsel submitted that P.W. 4, the first informant has categorically stated that when she raised alarm (hullah), certain villages had assembled at the scene of the occurrence, but none of the independent witnesses has been produced by the prosecution to strengthen the case of the first informant and this also creates doubt about the truthfulness of the eye-version account. 9. Learned counsel lastly submitted that it is the case of the accused that the deceased was assaulted in his field by Santhals (people of particular tribe) and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was placed in front of the house of the accused. Learned counsel submitted that the defence, as put forth by the accused, gets support from the statement of the P.W.5, daughter of the deceased who, at one stage, stated that she had seen the accused assaulting the deceased in the fields, may be in the second breadth she stated that occurrence has taken place in front of the house of the accused. 10. Pointing out the aforesaid weaknesses in the case of the prosecution, Ms. Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae prays for acquittal of the accused stating that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel prays for upholding conviction of the accused stating that there appears to be no reason to falsely implicate the accused in this case who certainly had the motive in his bosom as his father was allegedly killed by the deceased and P.W.3, who was facing criminal trial for the said offence. Learned State counsel submitted that in this eventuality it cannot be said to be stale motive in the bosom of the accused. Learned State counsel further submitted that there appears to be no reason to disbelieve the eye-version account simply on the ground that all the witnesses happen to be from one family (family of the deceased). 12. After rescanning the entire prosecution evidence in its right perspective, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case to the hilt against the accused for the charge of Section 302 I.P.C. 13. No doubt, the case of the prosecution is hinging upon the eye-witnesses from one family, but that cannot be a ground to discard them if they are otherwise trust-worthy. No doubt, the case of the prosecution is hinging upon the eye-witnesses from one family, but that cannot be a ground to discard them if they are otherwise trust-worthy. We usually note that in the village when any murder takes place, the passer-by or for that matter any other witness, does not come forward and they normally avoid to intervene for either side. This, in fact, has become the tendency now a days. Therefore, on this count at least the eye-witness, may be from one family, cannot be discarded. The only test to be applied in such like cases is the test of caution and care. We have applied the said test in the present case and thereafter only come to a categorical finding that the eye-version account is trust-worthy. We do find certain discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, in particular the evidence of P.W.5, daughter of the deceased, who, at one stage, stated that the occurrence had taken place in the fields and at the same breadth stated that she had seen the occurrence. Those discrepancies cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution at all. Even most natural witnesses are bound to differ with each other on certain aspects, therefore what needs to be appreciated is, whether discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses uproot the case of the prosecution or not. In the case on hand, if one rescans the evidence of first informant, the wife of the deceased and other three eye-witnesses, there appears to be no infirmity of such a character which would damage the basic substratum of the prosecution case as put forth. 14. No doubt, an attempt has been made by Ms. Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae to create doubt to some extent in the eye-version account taking the Court to the place of occurrence stating that the prosecution witnesses from a particular place could not see the occurrence, as there was certain houses in between obstructing their vision, but the said argument deserves to be rejected for the reason that the rough site plan of the place of occurrence is not proved on file. Even otherwise the height of the house in between is not made clear and even the distance between the intervening houses. Even otherwise the height of the house in between is not made clear and even the distance between the intervening houses. In villages, it is quite possible that the two lanes being situated at a very close distance, a person standing on a particular place can see another person standing even on the other adjacent lane. Therefore it cannot be said with certainty that the eye-witnesses could not see the accused causing injury on the person of the deceased from a particular point (in front of the house of the deceased). All the four prosecution witnesses have categorically stated that when the deceased had crossed the house of the accused, he came behind, caused one injury on the head of the deceased with Farsa in his hand and thereafter fled away from back side. We believe the consistent eye-version account. 15. The motive in this case cannot be said to stale one, rather it was continuing and the accused picked up a day. 16. Perhaps nothing more is left for our appreciation in the instant appeal. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the net result now surfaces is that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned trial court, thus, deserves to be upheld. The appeal on hand merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly. 17. Since the instant appeal has been filed by the accused through jail, he will be intimated of the outcome of the appeal through the registry without any delay. 18. A sum of Rs.3,500/- shall be disbursed by the State to Ms. Suchitra Pandey, appointed as Amicus Curiae for assisting this Court on behalf of the accused. Before parting with the judgment, we leave a note of appreciation for the assistance rendered by her.