Rajendra Yadav & Anr. vs The State of Jharkhand

I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

Originally, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 919 of 2008 was filed by three appellants out of them one appellant, namely Kamraj Yadav has died during the pendency of this appeal and his appeal was abated vide order dated 17.07.2026. The rest of the surviving appellants have been renumbered.

The instant criminal appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.07.2008 and 08.07.2008 respectively, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.-3), Daltonganj, Palamau in Sessions Case No. 149 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 304 part-II/34, 323 & 341 of the I.P.C. and each of them sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence under Section 304 part-II of the I.P.C.; R.I. for 1 month for the offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals as per fardbeyan of the informant, Santu Yadav (P.W.-8) is that on 16 April 1996, in the morning, his cousin, Kamlesh Yadav and accused Rajendra Yadav, son of Bal Kishun Yadav had gone to the market, where they got into a quarrel over some issue and assaulted each other. When the accused Rajendra Yadav returned home and informed his family members that he had been beaten by Kamlesh Yadav, all the accused persons allegedly took sticks and assaulted the informant and his uncle, Jhari Yadav, while abusing them. As a result, both the informant and his uncle sustained injuries.

On the basis of above fardbeyan, Sadar P.S. Case No. 143 of 1996 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 323 & 341 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 341 & 304/34 of the I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 149 of 1998 was registered. The accused persons denied from the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether 14 witnesses were examined by prosecution:-

P.W.-8-Santu Yadav (informant)

Apart from oral testimony of witnesses following documentary evidence have also been adduced by the prosecution.

‘x’ for identification on post-mortem report

On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication.

However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence.

The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence of prosecution arrived at definite conclusion about guilt of the appellants for the offences charged against them and convicted and sentenced them as stated above, which has been assailed in these appeals.

Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is unsustainable in law as well as on facts and is liable to be set aside, as the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 304 part-II of the I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the evidence of the Doctor is inconclusive and there is no clear finding regarding the nature of the injury which proved fatal and in such circumstances the possibility of death having occurred due to some intervening circumstance could not have been ruled out. It is further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from material contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies on vital aspects of the case and moreover, the witnesses being family members of the deceased were highly interested and were admittedly on inimical terms with the appellants on account of an earlier dispute and therefore their testimony could not have been relied upon without independent corroboration. It is also submitted that the prosecution has also failed to establish when the deceased was admitted to RIMS, for what period he remained under treatment and the circumstances in which his death ultimately occurred. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of the material infirmities, contradictions and gaps in the prosecution evidence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants are consequently entitled to the benefit of doubt. Hence, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and appellants deserve acquittal from the charges levelled against them, allowing these appeals.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of appellants and submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants on the basis of material available on record, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants and no merits in these appeals which is fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side.

The only point for determination in these appeals is “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants suffers from any serious error of law calling for any interference in these appeals?”

Before imparting my verdict on above point, it is desirable to take brief resume of ocular testimony of witnesses examined in this case.

P.W.-8, Santu Yadav is the informant-cum-injured witness in this case. He has deposed that on 16.04.1996 at about 11:00 A.M., his cousin brothers, Kamlesh and Rajendra had gone to the market, where a quarrel took place between them. Thereafter, Rajendra Yadav returned home and informed his family members that he had been beaten by Kamlesh Yadav. On hearing this, all the accused persons came and assaulted his uncle, Jhari Yadav as well as him with lathi. This witness stated that he sustained lathi blows on his forehead, elbows, both hands and legs. According to him, Rajendra Yadav was the first to assault his uncle on the head with a lathi. As a result of assault, his uncle became unconscious. He further stated that he had gone to the police station where he gave his statement and put his signature thereto. He further stated that he and his uncle were treated at Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj thereafter, the doctor referred his uncle to Ranchi, where, during the course of treatment, his uncle Jhari Yadav died after ten days. He has further stated that first of all his uncle Jhari Yadav was assaulted due to which he fell down then all the accused indiscriminately assaulted upon him. After assaulting upon uncle they assaulted him. Jhari Yadav was not in position to speak after being assaulted.

P.W.-7, Kamal Yadav has also deposed that the occurrence took place on 16.04.1996 at about 11:00 A.M., he had come to Daltonganj Railway Station, where he had an altercation with Rajendra regarding money. While, he was returning to his house, he saw the accused persons, namely Rajendra, Raj Kumar Yadav, Kamraj Yadav, Manoj Yadav and Upendra Yadav standing with lathi at the Redma Kashinagar More. According to him, when accused Rajendra Yadav assaulted him on his back with lathi, he raised an alarm. On hearing his cries, his father and Santu Yadav came there. Thereafter, accused Raj Kumar first surrounded his father and Santu Yadav and assaulted them indiscriminately with a lathi. His father and Santu Yadav sustained injuries in the assault. He took both of them to the Police Station by a tempo, from where they were taken to Daltonganj Sadar Hospital for treatment. After examining his father, the doctor advised that he be taken to Ranchi for better medical treatment. Accordingly, his father was taken to Ranchi, where he underwent treatment and during the course of treatment, his father died.

P.W.-2, Rajendra Yadav has deposed that while he was returning after selling milk, he saw Kamal Yadav and Rajendra Yadav talking and quarrelling near the house of Shravan Tiwari. Thereafter, Rajendra Yadav assaulted Kamal Yadav. On hearing his cries, Jhari Yadav and Santu Yadav came there. Rajendra Yadav struck Jhari Yadav on the forehead with lathi, while Raj Kumar Yadav struck Santu Yadav on the forehead and hand with lathi. Thereafter, all of them assaulted Jhari Yadav indiscriminately with lathi, as a result of which he became unconscious and fell down. According to him, Jhari Yadav was taken from Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj, to RMCH, where he died during the course of treatment.

P.W.-10, Premchand Yadav has deposed that while he was returning home from school, he saw all the accused persons assaulting the deceased, Santu Yadav and Jhari Yadav with lathi near the house of Shravan Tiwari. He further deposed that the accused persons had beaten his father and knocked him down and that blood was coming from his nose. According to this witness, Jhari Yadav was referred to Ranchi, where his father died ten days after the incident.

P.W.-11, Mandodari Kunwar is the wife of deceased. She has deposed that quarrel had taken place between Kamal Yadav and Rajendra Yadav on that day. After returning home, Rajendra Yadav grabbed a stick, intercepted Kamal Yadav and began beating him. She further stated that upon hearing Kamal Yadav's screams, she, her husband, Santu Yadav, and Rajendra Yadav ran to rescue him. Raj Kumar Yadav hit her husband on the head with a stick and Rajendra, Rajkumar and other witnesses also hit him with sticks, causing him to fall unconscious. She further stated that her husband was thereafter taken for treatment and was ultimately referred to Ranchi, where, after undergoing treatment for about 10 days, her husband died at Bariyatu, Ranchi.

P.W.-1, Rajnish Kumar is Advocate Clerk. This witness identified the handwriting and signature of Madan Prasad Singh, whom he recognized. He has proved the formal F.I.R. which is marked as Exhibit-1.

P.W.-14, Sanjay Kumar Dubey has identified the handwriting and signature of Sub-Inspector, U. Khan, the then Officer-in-Charge of Town Police Station, Daltonganj, which is marked as Exhibit 5.

P.W.-3, Shrawan Tiwari has only deposed that when he came home, he came to know that a quarrel had taken place between Jhari Yadav and Raj Kumar Yadav and that Jhari Yadav had died.

P.W.-4, Bachan Yadav, P.W.-5, Dasrath Yadav and P.W.-6, Ramkrit Tiwari have been declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.-9, Dr. Gyan Prakash Singh has examined Santu Yadav and found following injuries:-

Lacerated wound 3 c.m. x .5 c.m subcutaneous tissue deep over parietal region of scalp with irregular edges and active bleeding.

Swelling and tenderness near left elbow at lateral epicondyle. X-ray advised and awaited.

Bruise over middle of right thigh 10 c.m. x 4 c.m. reddish in colour.

Bruise over right shoulder 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. reddish in colour.

Nature of the wound-simple except wound No.2 in which x-ray is awaited.

Nature of weapon-caused by hard and blunt weapon.

On the same date, he has also examined Jhari Yadav and found following injuries:-

There were four haematoma over scalp (1) over forehead 6 c.m. x 4 c.m.

Right parietal region 6 c.m. x 4 c.m.

Left parietal region 4 c.m. x 4 c.m (4) Occipital region 4 c.m. x 4 c.m.

There was bleeding from right nostril, x-ray was advised and awaited.

Nature-caused be commented as x-ray skull is awaited

He has proved both injury reports, which is marked as Exhibits-3 and 3/A.

P.W.-13, Dr. Tulsi Mahto has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jhari Yadav (deceased) and found following injuries:-

Rest of the orgains are normal. The stomach contains bilious fluit 100 cc and urinally blader contains little urine.

Opinion:- All the injuries were anti-mortem. Rest of the injuries caused by hard and blunt substance.

Death was due to head injury. Time since death 6-24 hours from the time of post-mortem examination.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the evidence available on record, it appears that P.W.-8 Santu Yadav is an injured witness and has consistently stated that the appellants, armed with lathis, assaulted him and his uncle Jhari Yadav, who sustained serious head injuries. His testimony finds corroboration from P.Ws.-7, 2, 10 & 11. The ocular evidence is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W.-9, Dr. Gyan Prakash Singh found multiple injuries on the scalp of Jhari Yadav caused by a hard and blunt substance. P.W.-13, Dr. Tulsi Mahto, who conducted the post-mortem examination, found fracture of the parietal bone, contusion of the brain and subdural bleeding and opined that the death was due to head injury. The fact that the deceased died after about ten days of the occurrence also does not create any reasonable doubt, as there is no evidence of any intervening cause and the medical evidence clearly establishes that the death was due to the head injury sustained by him.

The manner of assault, use of lathi and blows inflicted on the vital part of the body establish the requisite knowledge under Section 304 Part-II/34 of the I.P.C. The injuries sustained by P.W.-8 and the evidence regarding the occurrence also support the convictions under Sections 323 and 341 of the I.P.C.

In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not find any legal substance in the point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellants and no merits in these appeals to take a different view and interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. As such, conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby upheld and confirmed.

Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

The appellants are on bail, their bail bond is cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the concerned Trial Court within two months from the date of this judgment to sustain the remaining period of sentence awarded to them, failing which, learned Trial Court shall take all coercive steps for arrest and detention of the appellants for serving the remaining period of sentence awarded to them.

Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.