Yugal Yadav vs The State of Bihar

M.L. Visa, J.—Yugal Yadav the sole Appellant in this case before as is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.6.87 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger, in Sessions Case No. 301 of 1986/56 of 1986 convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short. IPC).

The case of prosecution, in short, as stated in the Fardbeyan (Ext. 3) is that informant Gajan Manjhi (P.W. 2) on 23.8.82 in the night along with his family members was sleeping in his house. His wife and daughter-in-law were inside the house and his son Yogi Manjhi was sleeping in the verandah of courtyard of the house. At about 12 O'' Clock in the night the informant awoke on hearing sound of cries and he found that his son Yogi Manjhi was crying in injured condition and someone was assaulting him by Farsa''. He identified him who was Appellant carrying ''Farsa'' and Yogi Manjhi told informant that Appellant had given a ''Farsa'' blow on his neck causing injury. In presence of informant, Appellant again gave two ''Farsa'' blows to Yogi Manjhi causing cut injuries on his head and left hand. Yogi Manjhi in injured condition and informant both caught hold of Appellant and snatched his ''Farsa'' but in the meantime Appellant managed to get himself free and succeeded in fleeing away. On ''hulla'' of informant, his wife Sudamiya Devi (P.W. 3). his daughter-in-law Dharhi Devi (P.W. 5), his another son Nago alias Nageshwar Manjhi (P.W. 6), Mehandi Manjhi (not examined) and neighbours namely, Prasadi Manjhi, Munshi Manjhi and Jhethari Manjhi (all not examined) came there and they also saw the Appellant running away and they chased the Appellant but they could not succeed to apprehend him. The informant with the help of his neighbours brought his injured son Yogi Manjhi to Giddaur where after seeing the condition of injured the doctor and police advised the informant to take his son to Jamui Hospital. The informant in the night itself brought his injured son to Jamui Hospital where after some treatment his son Yogi Manjhi died after some time. About the genesis of occurrence the informant in his fardbeyon has stated that his pig had entered the field of Appellant on which exchange of hot words had taken place between the Appellant and his deceased son Yogi Manjhi and since then Appellant was annoyed with the deceased. The Fardbeyan of informant was recorded on 24.3.82 at 10 AM in Jamui Hospital by SI Shri Shiv Das (not examined). On the basis of fardbeyan of informant a case u/s 302 IPC was registered against the Appellant by drawing a formal FIR (Ext. 2) and police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the Appellant u/s 302 IPC. The Appellant was put on trial and he was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life u/s 302 IPC.

The case of Appellant from the evidence of Shiv Sahai Yadav (D.W. 1) and from the trend of cross examination of prosecution witnesses is complete denial of charge and his false implication in this case. His further defence is that there was never any altercation between the Appellant and deceased on account of grazing of crop by pig and deceased himself was a criminal and he was murdered in a dispute which arose between him and his companions on the point of sharing booty of dacoity.

Altogether 9 witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution. Bhola Singh (P.W. 1) is a formal witness who has proved post mortem examination report (Ext. 1) showing cut wounds on the root of neck, skull and hand of deceased and wound of neck as the cause of death, in the pen and signature of Dr. Ram Swaroop Singh who, according to him, is dead now. He has also proved formal FIR (Ext. 2), in the pen and signature of Mangal Kishore Prasad, then the Investigating Officer of Laxmipur Police Station. Gajan Singh (P.W. 2) is the informant. Sudamiya Devi (P.W. 3) is wife of informant and mother of deceased. Matukdhari Tewari (P.W. 4) is a witnesses of inquest report and has said that in his presence police prepared inquest report of the dead body of deceased at Jamui Hospital and he put his signature on the inquest report and another witness Lato Manjhi (P.W. 7) put his LTI on this report. He has proved carbon copy of inquest report (Ext. 4). He has further said that police seized the ''Farsa'' and prepared a seizure list on which he put his signature. He has proved this seizure list also (Ext. 5). Dharhi Devi (P.W. 5) is wife of deceased. Nageshwar Manjhi (P.W. 6) is another son of informant. Lato Manjhi (P.W. 7) is another witness of inquest report. He has said that inquest report of the dead body of deceased was prepared in Jamui Hospital and he had seen cut injuries on the neck and head of dead body of deceased. Radhiya Devi (P.W. 8) is a tendered witness. Basant Singh (P.W. 9) is I.O. of the case.

Gajan Manjhi (P.W. 2), informant, in his evidence has said that on the night of occurrence he was sleeping in his house and his wife and daughter-in-law and his two other sons namely, Nago and Mehandi were also sleeping in the house and his deceased son was sleeping in the ''Osara'' of the house. He awoke on hearing cries of his deceased son and when he came in the courtyard of his house ho saw Appellant inflicting (sic) injury on his deceased son and his son received a cut injury on his neck and in his presence the Appellant inflicted two more ''Farsa'' injuries on the head and hand of deceased. His deceased son Yogi complained that he was being assaulted by Appellant and thereafter on his ''hulla'' his wife, daughter-in-law and other family members of his family came. He has further said that he tried to catch hold of Appellant but Appellant managed to flee away but he snatched the Farsa of Appellant from his possession which he later on produced before the police. According to him, the occurrence was witnessed by his wife, sons and his daughter-in-law. About his deceased son he has said that he was brought to Giddaur Hospital where seeing his condition critical the doctor advised him to take his son to Jamui Hospital and he then came to Jamui Hospital but his son died there before coming the doctor and Officer-in-charge of Jamui Police station recorded his fardbeyan (Ext. 3). About the genesis of occurrence he has said that a pig had entered the field of Appellant and grazed the crop which caused annoyance to Appellant. He has proved a blood stained ''Farsa'' which is marked Material Ext. I and he has said that it was the same ''Farsa'' which was used by Appellant in inflicting injuries to deceased and which he snatched from the Appellant. Sudamiya Devi (P.W. 3), Dharhi Devi (P.W. 5) and Nago @ Nageshwar Manjhi (P.W. 6) who are mother, wife and brother respectively of deceased, supporting the case of prosecution have stated that at the time of occurrence they were sleeping in their house and they awoke on hearing cries and saw Appellant assaulting the deceased with ''Farsa''. They have further said that Appellant after assault fled away but his ''Farsa'' was snatched. They have further said that deceased had received injuries on his neck, head and hand and deceased was taken to Jamui Hospital where he died. They all have identified the Appellant in Court. They have been cross examined at length on behalf of the Appellant (sic) we do not find that anything has been elicited from them to disbelieve their evidence. Basant Singh (P.W. 9) has said that on 24/8/82 he was posted as SI at Giddaur Out post and on that day in the morning he came to know that deceased had died at Jamui Hospital and he then went to Jamui Hospital where he received the copy of fardbeyan of informant which was already recorded and original copy of which was sent to Laxmipur police station for lodging a case. He has said that he took up the investigation of the case and visited the place of occurrence which is the house of Informant. He has further stated that at the place of occurrence he found a cot with blood stains and he also found some blood, stains on the southern wall of ''Osara'' of the house but those stains were not enough for collection by scratching the wall and therefore he could not collect the samples of those stains. He has further said that there was mud in the courtyard freshly trampled by foot prints. According to him, he recorded the statement of witnesses and collected the fardbeyan and blood stained ''farsa'' from the police station and thereafter on his transfer handed over the charge of investigation to his successor Shri Shiv Das who on his transfer handed over the investigation to SI Mahendra Yadav who submitted charge sheet.

Shiv Sahai Yadav (D.W. 1) in his evidence has said that he knows the Appellant who has been falsely implicated in this case and deceased was a criminal and was killed by other criminals and no altercation between the Appellant and deceased had taken place on account of grazing of crop of Appellant by the pig of deceased. In cross examination he has said that he did not witness the murder of deceased but has admitted that he had heard that the deceased was ''cut'' in his new house. About the criminal antecedent of deceased he has admitted that he had no relation with the deceased and he cannot say in which case of dacoity the deceased was accused. Although he has said that deceased was an accused in the dacoity of a Genadih case but he has stated that he cannot say the case number. His evidence is of quite negative nature and does not help the case of Appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has argued that P.W. 3 Sudamiya Devi in her cross examination had admitted that time of occurrence was a dark night and because she has not stated about any source of light, therefore, the evidence of prosecution witnesses that they identified the Appellant at the time of occurrence does not appear to be trustworthy. We are unable to agree with this submission of learned Counsel of Appellant because all the prosecution witnesses have stated that when they awoke on hearing the cries of deceased they saw a scuffle between Appellant and deceased and in their presence Appellant inflicted ''farsa'' blows on the deceased. Their evidence is that the ''farsa'' which the Appellant was carrying was snatched from his possession. Their evidence clearly shows that they had sufficient opportunity to see the Appellant who was known to them from before and the occurrence took place in their house. It has further been argued on behalf of the Appellant that although in the Fardbeyan informant has said that a number of his neighbours reached the place of occurrence but no neighbour of informant has been examined in this case. It is true that no neighbour of informant has been examined by prosecution but then in the fardbeyan itself neighbours of informant are not said to be the witnesses to the occurrence and there it is clearly stated that they had reached the place of occurrence on hearing ''hulla'' and had simply seen the Appellant running away from the place of occurrence. In this view of the matter the evidence of prosecution witnesses who have been examined by prosecution cannot be thrown away. Learned Counsel of Appellant has further argued that post mortem examination report in this case has been proved by an advocate clerk and not by any doctor or compounder. As stated earlier the post mortem examination report (Ext. 1) has been proved by P.W. 1 who has said that Dr. Ram Swaroop Singh in whose handwriting and signature the post mortem examination report was prepared is dead. The fact that the Doctor who had held autopsy and prepared post mortem examination report is dead has not been challenged on behalf of the Appellant. In view of this fact the submission of learned Counsel of Appellant that post mortem examination report has not been proved by a doctor or any medical man does not carry much weight. The further argument on behalf of Appellant is that the motive of occurrence as alleged by prosecution is very weak and merely grazing of crop of the field of Appellant by the pig of deceased cannot be a ground for committing the murder of deceased by Appellant. In this case Appellant has been charged for committing the murder of deceased and there is evidence of eye witnesses who are family members of deceased that they saw the Appellant inflicting ''farsa'' injuries'' to the deceased which ultimately resulted in the death of deceased. In view of this consistent evidence of prosecution witnesses the nature of motive cannot be a ground to reject the case of prosecution.

Considering the entire evidence on record we find that prosecution has proved the charge against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and there appears no ground to disbelieve the case of prosecution.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the Court below convicting and sentencing the Appellant is hereby confirmed.

B.K. Jha, J.

I agree.