Fagu Yadav and Ashok Yadav @ Ashuwa Yadav and Another vs The State of Bihar

Anjana Prakash, J.—During trial the prosecution in all examined twelve witnesses out of whom P.W. 7, Kero Yadav and P.W. 9 Naresh Yadav have been tendered by the prosecution whereas P.W. 11, T. Hembrum is the Doctor who examined the injured. P.W. 12 is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 1, Mantu Yadav, P.W. 2, Bankey Yadav and P.W. 4, Shaligram Yadav are the three sons of the informant, P.W. 3, Bodhram Gope. P.W. 10, Muni Devi is the daughter-in-law of the informant. All these five witnesses are on the factum of occurrence. P.W. 5, Mahendra Yadav supported the factum of occurrence. P.W. 6, Chandra Yadav and P.W. 8, Hero Yadav have been declared hostile.

The defence also examined two witnesses on its behalf on the point that in fact appellant Ashok Yadav had gone to the house of his father-in-law on the date of occurrence. D.W. 1 and D.W 2 are on the point of false implication of Ashok Yadav.

The defence has not disputed the factum of occurrence but has seriously disputed complicity of the appellant. P.W. 4. the informant stated that after the occurrence the next day he was called to the police station where he went on an auto rickshaw and saw the two appellants having been detained by the police and it was disclosed by the Officer In-charge that they had been caught in the present occurrence. The informant then identified the two appellants. Admittedly, the identification of the appellants at the Police Station is not in accordance with law and in my view benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants on this score.

In the result, the appeals are allowed and the judgment and order dated 15.10.1996 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in S. Tr. No. 51/1995 is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.