GANGADHAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though broad features of the prosecution case have been fairly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below, we shall discuss only the salient features of them with brevity for better appreciation of the contentions raised at Bar.

(2.) Shortly after Tuna Rajak, who was pressing clothes, heard alarms about house having caught fire, came out of the house, noticed Bishundeo's house on fire and Umesh Yadav, Gangadhar Yadav, Bhudeo Yadav, Jaikaran Yadav, Anil Yadav, Rajniti Yadav and Bhushan Yadav, (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants) holding fire arms with them. It was alleged that on exhortation made by Jaikaran Yadav, Gangadhar Yadav fired shots on deceased Bishundeo Rajak, who dropped on the ground. Bhudeo Yadav and Anil Yadav, it was alleged, fired shots on Budhadeo Rajak who too dropped on the ground and further on exhortation made by Jaikaran Yadav, when house inmates began to flee, it was alleged that the Appellants showered bullets and also removed house belongings. By the time the house inmates came back, they found Bishundeo Rajak and Budhadeo Rajak, dead and with these accusations on strength of written report, first information report was drawn up, pursuant to which investigation followed.

(3.) In course of investigation, the Police Officer entrusted with the onerous task of investigation, visited place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, seized wads and also blood stained earth from the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report over the dead body of both the deceased, sent the dead bodies to mortuary for post mortem examination, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, State examiend altogether nine witnesses, who are relations of the deceased, formal witnesses, who brought first information report of Tuna Rajak on record, two doctors who had held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and also the Police Officer who was Investigating Officer of the case. Defence too had chosen to examine one witness, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh (DW 1) ostensibly to counter allegations attributed to the Appellants. The trial Court, however, on appreciation of evidences placed on the record, placing implicit reliance on witnesses, while rejecting plea of innocence of the Appellants, recorded finding of guilt, finding Gangadhar Yadav, Anil Yadav and Bhudeo Yadav guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life. These three Appellants suffered conviction also under Section 27 of the Arms Act for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years. Jai Karan Yadav suffered conviction under Section 302/109 IPC for which he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Though Jaikaran Yadav was found guilty also under Section 302/34 IPC, no sentence was awarded to him on this count. Bhushan Yadav, Rajniti Yadav and Umesh Yadav suffered conviction only under Section 435 IPC for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. However, in case of those convicts, who suffered conviction on more than two counts, their sentences were directed to run concurrently.