SURENDER TRILOKI YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging his conviction ordered by the Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif on 11.03.1994 in Sessions Trial No. 565 of 1992 convicting him for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and R.I. for 7 years respectively, this appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) read with Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that P.W. 7 Baleshwar Yadav recorded a fardbeyan on 12.05.1992 before the Sub-Inspector of Police Asthama on 12.05.1992 based on which the F.I.R. was registered and it was the grievance of the informant that his younger brother, namely, Binda Yadav had come to his village from his Sasural and on 11.05.1992 his friend and the present appellant Surender Yadav came to their house at 8:00 p.m. asked Binda Yadav to go and stay with him in his house in the night. After taking meal, Binda Yadav went along with Surender Yadav to his house and in the morning, it is stated that the informant was informed about the dead body of his younger brother Binda Yadav found in a ditch near the area. It was said that Binda Yadav was killed by the accused appellant Surender Yadav along with Ramdeo Yadav, Triloki Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Bindeshwar Yadav, Gopal Yadav and Lalan Yadav. All were prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. Surender Yadav having been convicted, this appeal, the other accused persons have been acquitted of the charges.

(3.) It is the case of the appellant before us that the entire conviction is based on circumstantial evidence i.e. the evidence to the effect that Binda Yadav was requested by the appellant to go to his house. He went to his house and certain witnesses like P.W. 2 Lakhan Yadav, P.W. 5 Yadu Yadav had seen the deceased Binda Yadav along with the appellant Surender Yadav and other co-accused person. It is emphasized by taking us through the evidence and statement on record that the last seen evidence in the matter is not sufficient enough to record the conviction and, therefore, the conviction is bad in law.