Muni Yadav @ Muni Lal Yadav and Others vs The State of Bihar

R.N. Sahay, J.—As many as twelve accused persons figure in this appeal. They are all residents of village Ariyav, P.S. Krishna Brahma (Dumraon) in the district of Buxar. The appellants were charged, tried and convicted for offences under Sections 364, 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to ten years imprisonment u/s 364 Indian Penal Code, Life term u/s 302/34 Indian Penal Code and seven years imprisonment u/s 201 of Indian Penal Code. Appellants Chhabila Yadav, Baban Yadav and Bankey Yadav have further been convicted for an offence u/s 27 Arms Act and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. The verdict of sentence was pronounced by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah on 23-9-1992 in Sessions Trial No. 206/86,

Prosecution story as alleged in the First Information Report is that on 20-12-1985 at about 6 to 6.30 in the evening Ramshakal Yadav, who at the relevant time was Chowkidar of Murar Police Station, had gone to fetch a Karah from village Kalhar. He had gone in the company of some villagers. The villagers were carrying a big Karah followed by Ramshakal Yadav, who was having Khurpi in his hand. When they covered some distance from village Kalhar towards their village, the appellants emerged from a Sugarcane field and caught Ramshakal Yadav. Appellants Kalanqi Yadav and others started assaulting Ramshakal Yadav. The villagers, who were carrying Karah, placed the Karah on the earth and protested and at the same time raised alarm. Appellants Baban Yadav and Bankey Yadav took up their guns. In the meantime, on hearing hulla, Dwarika Nath Yadav son of Chowkidar Ramshakal reached there and found the appellants dragging his father towards west. Soon thereafter, some villagers arrived. Appellants Baban Yadav, Bankey Yadav and Chhabila Yadav started indiscriminate firing to scare away the villagers, who wanted to rescue the Chowkidar. Chowkidar Ramshakal was carried towards north for the purpose of being killed. The motive for this daring act was previous land dispute for which case were going on in the Court.

Thakur Kamal Prasad (P.W. 8), who at the relevant time, was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Murar Police Station, came to know that some occurrence had taken place at village Manpa in which Chowkidar of the village has been abducted by anti-social elements. He made Station Diary Entry and proceeded towards the village with armed force. He reached the village at 00.30 hours and recorded the fardbeyan of Dwarika Nath Yadav, son of Chowkidar Ramshakal Yadav, on the basis of which First Information Report was lodged. It is to be noticed that the informant Dwarika Nath Yadav did not go to the police station on the day of occurrence, i.e. on 20-11-1985, which is 6 kms. away from the place of occurrence. The police on rumour reached the P.O. village in the night and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant,

During trial, prosecution called Buchul Yadav (P.W. 1) and Dwarika Nath Yadav (P.W. 2) son of Chowkidar Ramshakal Yadav who were witnesses to the occurrence of 20-11-1985. Both these witnesses have supported the story in the fardbeyan. P.W. 1 deposed that the Chowkidar was assaulted by the accused persons. He was tied to a lathi with rope. After 8 or 10 days of the occurrence a dead body was found burried in Amathua Ahra which was cut into pieces and was identified that of Ramshakal Yadav. This witness stated that all the accused persons are inter-related. He had not named appellant Mundrika Yadav. Dwarika Nath Yadav (P.W. 2) has narrated the same fact as Buchul Yadav (P.W. 1).

Thakur Kamal Prasad (P.W. 8), who was Investigating Officer of this case, had arrived at the P.O. village on hearing rumour of kidnapping of Chowkidar. He reached the P.O. village at 00.30 hours and recorded fardbeyan of the informant. He inspected the place of occurrence and found the Mahua tree and north to the trees, there was a cane field. He found stumping mark in the paddy field. House of accused Bankey Yadav was about 500 yards west to the place of occurrence. Village Ariyav was 400 yards west to the place of occurrence. He had received post-mortem report from Dumraon Police Station.

Krishna Ram (P.W. 9) was posted as Officer-in-charge of Dumraon Police Station. On 28-11-1985 he at 11.00 a.m. a rumour floated at the police station that Chowkidar Ramshakal Yadav had been kidnapped and his dismantled dead body had been found in village Amathua Ahra. The Officer-in-charge proceeded to Amathua Ahra along with police force. It became dark when he reached the village. On the next day at 10.00 a.m. he reached at the Ahra with police party and found a man moving in suspicious manner. He called that unknown man, who did not pay any need to his call and tried to run away. He was apprehended and he disclosed his name to be Mundrika Yadav of village Manpa. A dead body cut into pieces was recovered from water. The dead body was identified by Dwarika Nath Yadav.

Dr. Shrikrishna Chandra Singh (P.W. 7) held post-mortem examination on the pieces of dead body of Chowkidar Ramshakal Yadav on 30-11-1985 and found following:

(i) Two pieces of putrified thigh attached with skin and bone;

(ii) One piece of shoulder joint with head of the humerus found and portion of arm and attached with forearm;

(iii) Left side Tibia, fibula 15" right Tibia and Fabula 15"

(iv) Left lower end of Femur bone, knee joint;

(v) 22 pieces of rib with cartilage and putrified muscle and also manibrian sterni with 3" x 3".

(vi) A portion of wrist joint with amputated finger length 6-1/2" x 6-1/4".

On the basis of examination of bones, the deceased was found to be aged about 35 to 45 years. Cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries inflicted on the person caused by sharp cutting weapon.

The post-mortem examination was done by a Medical Board consisting three doctors.

Buchul Yadav (P.W. 1) had deposed that many villagers had arrived at the place of occurrence and he narrated the story to them. Dwarika Nath Yadav (P.W. 2) had deposed that he was not aware that accused Munni Yadav had filed a case against the deceased. He was not aware that Saryug Singh of nearby village was murdered by Naxalites. He was not aware of the fact Raj Kumar Upadhyay was also shot at by Naxalites. He was also not aware that Raj Kishore had been kidnapped by the Naxalites. There were instances of several kidnapping and murder by the Naxalites and question was put to him in this regard. He had admitted some of the incidents but shown his ignorance about many incidents of kidnapping.

The defence of the appellant was that the appellants were absolutely innocent. They have been implicated due to enmity. Some of the appellants were at Calcutta in connection with business at the relevant time. It was pleaded that Ramshakal Yadav was kidnapped by the Naxalites and the appellants had no hand in the kidnapping of Ramshakal Yadav.

Mr. P.N. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has assailed the conviction of the appellants on several cogent grounds while Counsel for the informant and State have justified the conviction and have argued that- the conviction of the appellants is fully justified having regard to the evidence. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was aged about 55 years but according to the post-mortem report the dead body was of a person aged about 35 to 45 years. Learned Counsel has argued that the deceased was killed on or about 26-11-1985 or 27-11-1985 and there is no evidence of his kidnapping or murder.

Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the portion of dead body of the deceased was recovered on 29-11-1985 and post-mortem examination was done 30-11-1985. But as per evidence of the Investigating Officer Mundrika Yadav was arrested on 1-12-1985 and he told about the dead body. This completely demolishes the prosecution case. Learned Counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses who had said that the deceased Ramshakal had been assaulted with lathi and after assault, somebody pressed the last portion of lathi on his stomach and he died at the spot. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the informant did not speak about any assault on his father by the accused persons. It was argued that the Investigating Officer did not find any Karha at the place of occurrence. No witness except these two witnesses (P.W. 1 and 2) who spoke to the Investigating Officer from where the Karha was brought, has been examined.

The evidence of P.W. 9, Krishna Rai, the then Officer-in-charge of Dumraon Police Station also appears absurd that the accused Mundrika Yadav would be guarding the dead body after it was buried. This story appears to be highly improbable. The investigation of the case was not upto mark.

Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the informant has admitted that he came at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla after the assault had already taken place. It is submitted that if he was near the place of occurrence, he would have rushed immediately but it is clear indication that he had not seen anything. I have examined his evidence and I hesitate to accept his evidence as an eye-witness. If this part of his evidence is cast aside, rest of his evidence is total argument.

In my considered opinion, in view of the admitted enmity and in view of the fact that many villagers, according to P.W. 1 assembled at the place of occurrence but a few were examined and the occurrence had taken place in the evening time, there is possibility that Chowkidar Ramshakal Yadav was kidnapped at a lonely place. There is no reliable witness to the occurrence. There is no clear motive for the gruesome crime. The dead body was recovered after several days. It is strange that the Investigating Officer did not pursue to search for the offenders in that evening. No message was sent to the adjoining police station. On the whole, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is far from satisfactory and meagre to sustain the conviction of so many persons. It is a fit case in which the appellants should be given benefit of doubt.

For the reasons stated above, I am unable to sustain the conviction of the appellants. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, conviction of the appellants is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges. Some of the appellants are on bail and some of them are still in custody. The appellants, who are in custody, shall be related forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.