PRASADI YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.8.2001 and order dated 23.8.2001 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in Sessions Case No. 191 of 1986 convicting and sentencing the appellants Prasadi Yadav, Kesho Yadav and Suraj Yadav to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, (in short "IPC"), rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 147 of IPC and rigorous Imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of Arms Act and appellants Uchit Yadav and Radhey Yadav to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 of IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 147 of IPC. The different sentences passed against appellants have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that informant Mahendra Yadav (PW 6) on 1.6.1985 at about 6.15 p.m. along with Sudama Yadav (PW 2) went to Gambharia Police Station and lodged a first information report stating therein that on the same day in the morning, he along with Sudama Yadav (PW 2), Nand Lal Yadav (PW 3) and Uchit Yadav (PW 4) had gone to Jamui to meet deceased Madan Yadav who had gone to Jamui on the morning of 29.5.1985. He and his companions met Madan Yadav at Jamui and after finishing the Court's work, he and his aforesaid companions and Madan Yadav all left Jamui by taxi jeep for their village Gambharia and they all at about 11.30 a.m. reached Dadpur More and from there, they bqarded a public bus at about 12.45 p.m. and reached Dwarpahdi More at about 1.20 p.m. After getting down from the bus at Dwarpahdi More, informant and his aforesaid companions proceeded to their house on foot and about 1.30 p.m. when they reached a place four hundred yards from Dwarpahdi High School, all of a sudden, all the appellants along with co-accused Matuki Yadav, Bharosi Yadav, Arjun Yadav and Dhaturi Yadav came there from the western side of road. Appellants Prasadi Yadav, Suraj Yadav and Kesho Yadav were armed with pistols whereas other appellants were empty handed. The appellants caught hold of deceased Madan Yadav and appellant Prasadi Yadav fired on left side of temple of deceased Madan Yadav. Informant and his companions wanted to raise hulla but the appellants gave them threatening that in' case they raised any alarm, they would also be killed compelling them to keep quiet out of fear and, thereafter, appellants, by dragging the deceased Madan Yadav, put him in a field towards east of road where appellant Suraj Yadav also fired on temple of deceased Madan Yadav and appellant Kesho Yadav fired on his abdomen. Deceased Madan Yadav died then and there and all appellants fled away towards north. On hearing the sound of firing, neighbouring witnesses came there to whom informant and his companions narrated the entire incident. About the motive, informant stated in first information report that there was litigation from before between the parties. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, the police instituted the case against appellants and co-accused Matuki Yadav, Bharosi Yadav, Arjun Yadav and Dhaturi Yadav and after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of IPC, and Section 27 of Arms Act. Cognizance of the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session where charges under Section 147 of IPC. were framed against appellants and co-accused Matuki Yadav, Arjun Yadav, Bharosi Yadav and Dhaturi Yadav and charges under Section 302 of IPC, and Section 27 of Arms Act were framed against appellants Prasadi Yadav, Suraj Yadav and Kesho Yadav and under Sections 302/149 of IPC, against appellants Uchit Yadav and Radhey Yadav as well as co-accused Arjun Yadav, Matuki Yadav, Dhaturi Yadav and Bharosi Yadav. After trial, co-accused Arjun Yadav, Dhaturi Yadav, Matuki Yadav and Bharosi Yadav were not found guilty and they were acquitted. So far appellants are concerned, they were held guilty and were convicted and sentenced, as stated above.

(3.) The case of the appellants is that on account of enmity, they have been falsely implicated in this case and deceased Madan Yadav was a veteran criminal, was involved in a number of cases, was having number of enemies and possibility of this being murdered by his other enemies cannot be rules out and they have been falsely implicated in this case because prosecution party was on inimical terms with them having litigation and in some cases lodged by appellants, informant and his relations had been convicted and sentenced to jail custody.