AWADHI YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants Awadhi Yadav and Bhalla Yadav are two of the eleven persons tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga. All of them were charged with offenses under Section 302/34, I. P. C. In addition, the appellants as well as A-2 to 4 and A-6 to 8 were also charged with offenses under Section 201/511, I. P. C. The learned trial Judge convicted Accused 1 to 8 both under Section 302/34 as well as Section 201/511, I. P. C. Under the former section, he sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life. He did not impose separate sentence under Section 201/511, I. P. C. In appeal the High Court of Patna affirmed the convictions of the appellants both under Section 302/34 as well as Section 201/511, L P. C. The other accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34, I. P. C. For the offense under Section 201/511, I. P. C. they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 31/2 years. Only the appellants have appealed against the decision of the appellate Court. This Court while granting special leave to appeal to this Court directed that the appeal should be confined to the question of conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. Therefore, the appellants are precluded from canvassing the correctness of their conviction under Section 201/511, I P. C. Hence no arguments were advanced before us on that question.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the appellants and some others, as a result of bitter enmity between some of the appellants and the deceased, Kishunlal Yadav joined together and murdered him on March 26, l963 in the village of Basudeopur Tola Arnama and thereafter carried away the dead body of Kishunlal Yadav with the intention of screening the offenders from legal punishment.

(3.) The case against the appellants in respect of the charge under Section 302/34, rests on circumstantial evidence. No one has witnessed the murder. That part of the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The High Court has held that the circumstances established are not sufficient to convict the accused persons other than the appellants for offense under Section 302/34, I. P. C. The question is whether the High Court was justified in holding that the evidence is sufficient to convict the appellants under that charge. Before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no place. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities.