DIWAKAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though as many as seven persons were put on trial, while others were exonerated of the charges by the Trial Judge, the appellant alone suffered conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life on the first count and a term of five years imprisonment on the second count with a direction that both the sentence would run concurrently.

(2.) At the outset, we may notice some of the salient features centering round the incident in question. It was alleged that in the intervening night of 6/7th April, 1993, at the dead of night, while deceased Mahendra Yadav had slept in the courtyard of his house, along with his family members, seven persons came, pursuant to which appellant fired a shot on him. When father of the deceased raised alarm. Ino Yadav fired another shot causing injury to Mahendra Yadav who eventually succumbed to them. Those who accompanied the assailants, were suggested to be Parsuram Yadav, Shailesh Yadav, Ghoghan Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and Ramesh Yadav, who were identified in the flash light of torch by the father, mother and daughter of the deceased. One Germany Yadav too was suggested to have rushed to the place of occurrence, who witnessed killing of the deceased. Motive assigned behind the killing of Mahendra Yadav as suggested by the prosecution was that younger sister of the wife of the deceased was married to the appellant, who, having betrayed his wife, contracted another marriage for which a panchaity was convened, which offended the appellant and culminated in killing of the deceased. The prosecution was launched on behest of the father of the deceased, pursuant to which investigation commenced, during which the Police Officer recorded statement of witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, prepared inquest report, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court, against these, who were put on trial. In the eventual trial, the State examined altogether 11 witnesses, including father, mother and daughter of the deceased and also those who stated to have witnessed the incident. The State also examined the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.

(3.) The defence of the appellant before the Trial Court and also this Court had been that of plain innocence and his explicit defence at trial was that as the deceased bore criminal antecedent, he was killed by some others at a different place and having seized opportunity, he was implicated by family members of the deceased. The Trial Court finding insufficiency of evidence, as has been stated earlier, while acquitted others, recorded finding of guilt against appellant alone and sentenced him in the manner stated above.