“No Role in the Alleged Occurrence” — “Stands Proved Beyond Pale of Any Reasonable Doubt”: Patna High Court Acquits Seven, Upholds Life Sentence of One in 1992 Murder Case
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Patna Division Bench of Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Nani Tagia set aside the conviction and sentence of seven individuals who had been convicted in connection with a 1992 murder case in Supaul District. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish their complicity in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of one appellant, observing that his role in the killing of the deceased was conclusively proved. The Court directed the acquitted appellants to be discharged from their bail bonds and ordered the convicted appellant to serve the remaining sentence.
The appeals arose from the judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2016 and order of sentence dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 138 of 1994, arising out of Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 85 of 1992. The case related to a land dispute involving the informant Ravi Yadav and accused parties, culminating in the fatal shooting of the informant’s son, Dilip Kumar Yadav.
According to the FIR lodged on 05.09.1992, the informant’s family had purchased agricultural land previously cultivated by the accused’s family. Despite a panchayati settlement, tensions continued. On the morning of the incident, the informant’s son went to plough the disputed field. Allegedly, a mob led by Natai Yadav and his associates, including the appellants, arrived at the site. The FIR stated that Vidyanand Yadav fired a gunshot at Dilip, killing him, while others attacked the informant and his wife.
The police registered the FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307, 302, 120B, 447, and 114 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. A charge sheet was filed on 03.12.1992, and charges were framed on 12.08.1996 under various IPC sections, including Sections 302 and 120B.
The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Key witnesses included PW1 (Rajesh Kumar Yadav), the brother of the deceased; PW4 (Ravi Yadav), the informant and father of the deceased; and PW5 (Anirudh Paswan). PW12, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, also provided critical medical evidence. Several witnesses, including PW6 and PW8, were declared hostile.
The appellants contested the findings, arguing that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were inconsistent, the place of occurrence was not established, and there was no forensic evidence connecting them to the offence. The defence also argued that the investigating officer was not examined, causing prejudice to their case.
The Court examined the evidence on record and found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of 2016.
Regarding these seven appellants, the Court stated:
“We find that neither any evidence has been brought forth to show meeting of minds between the aforesaid Appellants for the intended object of committing an illegal act nor there is any evidence to establish that there was an agreement between the Appellants for doing an unlawful act.”
Referring to PW4’s cross-examination, the Court observed:
“PW 4 (Ravi Yadav), who has categorically stated… that except Vidyanand Yadav (appellant of the second case) none of the other accused had assaulted Dilip Yadav and rest of the accused persons were standing quietly at a distance of 2-3 bamboo length.”
On the alleged assault on the informant and his wife by the acquitted appellants, the Court held:
“The prosecution has failed to bring on record/exhibit any Injury Report of the said injured witnesses much less produce or adduce the evidence of the Doctor who had treated them.”
The Court concluded:
“It would not be safe to hold the appellants of the first case guilty of the offences alleged qua them.”
In contrast, the Court upheld the conviction of Vidyanand Yadav (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 315 of 2016), holding that his role was clearly established through ocular and medical evidence.
“We can safely conclude that the allegation levelled against Vidyanand Yadav… regarding him having fired gunshot on the chest of Dilip Yadav (deceased) leading to his death stands proved beyond pale of any reasonable doubt.”
The Court relied heavily on the testimony of PW1 and PW4:
“The evidence of PW 1 and PW 4 is truthful, cogent, credible and trustworthy.”
Corroborating this, the post-mortem report by PW12 recorded a punctured wound consistent with a firearm injury:
“The cause of death is hemorrhage and shock leading to cardio-respiratory failure caused by firearm.”
The Court dismissed the appellant’s contention that the non-exhibition of the bullet or recovery of the weapon undermined the case, stating:
“Merely because the fardbeyan has not been exhibited, the same has neither caused any prejudice to the appellants nor it makes any material difference.”
Allowing Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of 2016, the Court held:
“By way of extending benefit of doubt, we acquit all the appellants of the first case… and set aside the judgment of their conviction and sentence dated 29.01.2016 and 09.02.2016 respectively.”
The Court ordered:
“The appellants… are on bail, hence they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.”
However, the Court dismissed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 315 of 2016:
“We do not find any error apparent in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence qua Vidyanand Yadav… the same does not require any interference.”
It directed:
“The appellant… is directed to serve the remaining sentence i.e. imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- as also rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act, however both the sentences shall run concurrently.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Alok Kumar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Raghwendra Pratap Singh, Advocate; Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
Case Title: Bhupendra Yadav & Ors. v. The State of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 315 of 2016
Bench: Justice Mohit Kumar Shah, Justice Nani Tagia
[Read/Download order]
