JAGO YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALTOGETHER eight number of accused persons including Lila Yadav, who is reported to be dead when the appeal has been taken up for hearing, and against whom the appeal has, as such abated, were put on trial and, out of them, Jago Yadav, Ruplal Yadav, Mannu Yadav, Bulu Yadav, Raj Kumar Yadav, Lila Yadav, Lattu Yadav, and Ramchandar Yadav, suffered conviction under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Jago Yadav, Ruplal Yadav, Raj Kumar Yadav, Lila Yadav and Lattu Yadav suffered conviction also under section 148 IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years each. Those who suffered conviction under section 147 IPC were Munnu Yadav, Bulu Yadav and Ram Chandra Yadav and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. Ruplal Yadav suffered conviction also under section 324. IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. Likewise, Mannu Yadav and Bulu Yadav suffered conviction also under section 323 IPC and were sentencd to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year with direction that all the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) AS usual, land dispute was said to be the genesis of the incident that took place on the fateful day of 20th July, 1981. It was alleged that in the year 1978, four decimals of land appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 441 had been transferred by virtue of execution of a deed of sale (Exhibit 3) by Jago Yadav, one of the appellants, in favour of Baleshwar Yadav and only ten days preceding the incident, the appellants forcibly secured possession of the land and planted maize crops therein. It was on 20th July, 1981 that while deceased Jay Mangal Prasad was ploughing other piece of land in the company of his son Baleshwar Yadav (P.W. 6), that the appellants came in the early hours of 8 a.m. holding khanti, lathi and spear, and on exhortation made by Jago Yadav it was Ruplal who dealt khanti blow on right arm and knee of Jay Mangal which was followed by assault by rest appellants when said Jay Mangal Yadav dropped to the ground. It was alleged that when Baleshwar Yadav came for rescue of his father, he too suffered injuries at the hands of Mannu Yadav and Bullu Yadav who dealt blows with hard and blunt substance on his right leg and right arms. Accusations were attributed to the rest appellants about assaulting Baleshwar Yadav too. It was the son of the deceased who took recourse to public authority and instituted a Police case against the appellants, pursuant to which investigation commenced in course of which the Police Officer, appointed as Investigating Officer of the case, took up investigation, recorded statement of witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report, sent the dead body to mortuary for post mortem examination and on receipt of autopsy report, having concluded investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. Charges were framed against the appellants by the trial court when terms of accusations were attributed to them and during eventual trial, the State examined altogether nine witnesses including the injured, who also happened to be the son of the deceased, the doctor, who held autposy over the dead body of Jay Mangal Yadav and also the doctor, who clinically examined the injuries noticed on the person of Baleshwar Yadav, the Police Officer and host of other witnesses who stated to be conversant with the incident. The land dispute between the parties to be the fall out for false implication of the appellants was the contention raised on behalf of the appellants before the trial court and also this Court, and the trial court while rejecting the contentions of the appellants and placing implicit reliance on the testimony of the ocular witnesses and also others who lent assurance to the prosecution case about killing of Jay Mangal Yadav and causing injury to Baleshwar Yadav, recorded finding of guilt against the appellants and sentenced them in the manner stated above.

(3.) BEFORE we delve upon the evaluation of the probative value of testimony of the witnesses, who are either ocular or of supporting nature, with brevity, we would like to discuss the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which have also been spelt out in deails by the trial court in its judgment. Baleshwar Yadav (P.W. 6) who was not only maker of fardbeyan and son of the deceased Jay Mangal Yadav, was also a stamped witness, he having suffered injuries on his person in the same transaction when he came for rescue of his father, and narrations made by this witnesses about appellants having visited place of occurrence holding arms with them and Ruplal Yadav assaulting his father with khanti on right arm and the others dealing indiscriminate blows on him with their respective weapons when he tried to rescue his father was reiteration of his early version which he rendered before the Police. Likewise, in the same fashion, he would reiterate about Mannu Yadav and Bullu assaulting him with lathi on his right leg when he came for rescue of his father. Now one may switch over to the testimony of Ramdeo Prasad Yadav (P.W. 1) who was the other ocular witnesses and his name very much finds place in the fardbeyan of Baleshwar Yadav. The witness would state in very positive terms that while he was ploughing his land which situates adjacent to the field of Jay Mangal Yadav in the southern boundary, he noticed the appellants coming, holding arms with them and narrations made by this witness about Ruplal assaulting Jaymangal Yadav with khanti and others assaulting him and dealing indiscriminate blows with lathi was in consonance with the evidence of Baleshwar Yadav (P.W. 6). The accusation attributed to Mannu Yadav and Bullu Yadav, assaulting Baleshwar Yadav, made by this witness was also in tune with the testimony of Baleshwar Yadav (P.W. 6). The other witnesses were Ramdeo Prasad Yadav (P. W. 2) who happened to be the son of Meghan Prasad Yadav and also Ram Saran Yadav (P.W. 3). These two witnesses though did not claim to be ocular witnesses to the incident, they stated to have noticed Jay Mangal Yadav lying injured and the appellants making good their escape with the their arms. Attention of these two witnesses had been drawn by the defence towards their early versions which they rendered before the Police and rightly the court below did not find them credible to the extent of witnessing the appellants making good their escape notwithstanding narrations made by these witnesses about witnessing Jay Mangal Yadav and Baleshwar Yadav lying injured, to be true account of the incident. Rajdeo Yadav (P.W. 4) was tendered by the State and there was nothing material in his evidence to merit consideration. Though Balaki Yadav (P.W.