SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Raj Kishore Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 21 August, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.897 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2013 Thana- ISLAMPUR District- Nalanda

Raj Kishore Yadav, son of Chandrika Yadav, Resident of Village- Barbigha,
P.S.- Islampur, District- Nalanda.

… … Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar

… … Respondent/s

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak-Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh-A.P.P.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
ORAL JUDGMENT

21-08-2019 Vide judgment of conviction dated 29.09.2016

and order of sentence dated 30.09.2016, appellant Raj Kishore

Yadav has been found guilty for an offence punishable under

Section 307/Section34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for

ten years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.10,000/- and

in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for one year, additionally,

under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I.

for two years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.2,000/-

and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for three months, under

Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for

five years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.5,000/- and

in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for six months, additionally,

with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently, by the

2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda in Sessions Trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
2/23

No.409 of 2014 arising out of Islampur P. S. Case No.166 of

2013.

2. Kamla Devi (PW-4) gave her fard-bayan on

09.09.2013 at about 3.30 A.M. while she was admitted at

Primary Health Centre, Islampur in an injured condition,

disclosing therein that her husband Raj Kishore Yadav, father-

in-law Chandrika Yadav and Dhananjay Kumar, for the last one

week were engaged in torturing her and during course thereof,

used to assault. Then thereafter, they ousted. Her husband is

engaged in torturing her and used to say that you happen to be

black, ugly responsible for begotting only daughter, so after

killing you, he will re-marry, otherwise leave the place. In the

aforesaid background, he had attempted upon her life at an

earlier occasion, but escaped. Today i.e. 09.09.2013 at about

1.00 A.M. while she was asleep along with her daughter Seema

Kumari aged about four years, her husband Raj Kishore Yadav,

father-in-law Chanrika Yadav came, abused and during course

thereof, ordered to kill. Her husband, who was armed with a

countrymade pistol, fired causing injury over her left hand. She

fell down. They both fled away. Anyhow, she rushed there from

in order to save her life and during midst thereof, met with the

police patrolling party, who got her admitted at the hospital.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
3/23

3. On the basis of the aforesaid fard-bayan,

Islampur P. S. Case No.166 of 2013 has been registered and

during course thereof, two accused namely Chanrika Yadav and

Dhananjay Kumar were apprehended, whereupon chargesheet

was submitted against them keeping investigation pending

against the appellant. It is not known with regard to result of the

trial relating to aforesaid two accused persons. Subsequently,

appellant has been arrested, thereafter charge sheet has been

submitted, facilitating the trial, meeting with the ultimate result,

subject matter of instant appeal.

4. Defence case, as is evident from mode of

cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section

313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial. There happens to

be specific defence at the end of the appellant that so alleged

victim was not residing at his place. She was residing

somewhere else and had sustained injury at that very place, but

in the background of the strained relationship, got the appellant

implicated and for that, produced oral as well as documentary

evidence.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution

has examined altogether eight PWs, who are PW-1, Mahendra

Yadav, PW-2, Sakli Devi, PW-3, Ranju Devi, PW-4, Kamla
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
4/23

Devi, PW-5, Ram Babu Prasad, PW-6, Bishundeo Kumar, PW-

7, Dr. Shreekant Prasad and PW-8, Dr. Dwarika Prasad.

Furthermore, also exhibited documentary evidence as

chargesheet as Exhibit-1, Injury reports as Exhibit-2 and

Exhibit-3, F.I.R. as Exhibit-4. In likewise manner, two DWs

have been examined, who are DW-1, Rajendra Prasad and DW-

2, Satendra Prasad. The defence has also exhibited Complaint

Petition No.287C of 2008, Compromise Petition as Exhibit-A,

petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in Complaint Petition

No.287C of 2008 as Exhibit-B, Certified copy of Complaint

petition no.287C of 2008 as Exhibit-C, certified copy of order

dated 30.04.2015 passed in Complaint Case No.346C of 2013 as

Exhibit-D, Certified Copy of Complaint Case No.34C of 2013

as Exhibit-E.

6. It has been submitted at the end of the learned

counsel for the appellant that no offence as alleged has been

committed at the end of the appellant, whereupon the conviction

and sentence recorded by the learned lower Court is fit to be set

aside. In order to substantiate the same, it has been submitted

that evidence of all the witnesses if is taken together, it is crystal

clear that there was no possibility of the informant to remain at

the place of the appellant in the background of presence of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
5/23

summary cases amongst them. That being so, there was no

occasion for her to sustain injury at the place of the appellant

and for that, referred so many exhibit. It has further been urged

that from Exhibit-A, it is evident that the compromise in the

Complaint Case No.287C of 2008 has been filed on 18.04.2011.

There happens to be no disclosure at the end of the prosecution

that since thereafter, the informant was residing at the place of

the appellant. Whereupon, there was no opportunity for the

informant to have sustained injury allegedly at the end of the

appellant by means of firearm at the hands of appellant. It has

also been submitted that another petition, which happens to be

dated 16.05.2013 filed on behalf of informant (PW-4) under

Section 311 Cr.P.C. relating to Complaint Case No.287C of

2008 discloses the fact that she has been ousted from the house

of the appellant, whereupon the matter has been reported before

the Court on 13.05.2013, then in that circumstance, presence of

informant at the place of appellant on 09.09.2013, really appears

to be ridiculous and that being so, the version advanced on

behalf of appellant could not be relied upon.

7. It has also been argued that there happens to

be specific defence suggested to the informant that she is

residing at Hulasganj after re-marrying. Furthermore, it has also
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
6/23

been suggested that informant had not sustained injury in a

manner and at the place as disclosed rather she had sustained

injury at different place in different manner by different persons

and in the background, the prosecution would have proved its

case beyond reasonable doubt, more particularly, after having a

petition dated 16.05.2013, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on the

ground that she has been ousted from her matrimonial place.

8. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that

not even a single independent witness has been examined. PW-

1, is brother, PW-2, is the mother and PW-3 is the Bhabhi of the

informant (PW-4). PW-5 has turned hostile. PW-6 is the I.O.,

who has not supported the version of the prosecution, more

particularly, with regard to the P.O. and with regard to injury

sustained by the informant, that has not been controverted. So

examination of PW-7 and PW-8 are of no use. From the

evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, it is evident that they are

merely hearsay. So the case rest upon the testimony of PW-4,

the informant. After going through the same, it is apparent that it

is full of mawkishness.

9. In an alternative, it has also been submitted

that no offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is made out,

because of the fact that there happens to be specific disclosure at
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
7/23

the end of the informant that she had sustained only one shot.

Had there been an intention, then in that circumstance, victim

was alone, victim was inside the room, so many accused persons

were there, there was every opportunity available before them to

have killed the informant. That being so, having no intervening

circumstance, but simply making firing that too, causing injury

over the hand, did not justify the conviction under Section 307

of the I.P.C. as it rules out intention or knowledge during course

of commission of crime. Furthermore, appellant happens to be

under custody since 04.01.2014. In the aforesaid background,

considering the period of detention in worst case, the sentences

be modified as period already undergone for modifying the

finding recorded by the lower Court.

10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor vehemently opposed the argument raised on behalf

of appellant and has submitted that when the evidence of DW is

taken together with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it

is apparent that I.O. has gone to the camp of the accused and so,

he has deposed in a manner, favourable to the accused.

Furthermore, it has also been submitted that actually I.O. has

gone in camp of accused and on account thereof, did not visit

the room, the real place of occurrence had not seen the bed,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
8/23

otherwise the passing of the cartridge would have been properly

perceived, the trailing mark of blood, when there happens to be

an admission at his end that he was not the member of the

patrolling party, then in that circumstance, would have traced

out the members of the patrolling party, who could have

enlightened the issue, more particularly in the background of

statement given by him under Para-7 of the cross-examination

wherein he has stated that he was not on the patrolling and

further, he was entrusted with the investigation on the same day

at about 4.30 A.M. The second aspect happens to be during

course of cross-examination in Para-13, it is evident that he had

visited the P.O. on 05.09.2013 at about 5.15 A.M., which is

found falsified from the evidence of PW-7 as well as PW-8, who

had examined the victim at P.H.C., Islampur as well as Sadar

Hospital, Biharsharif in consonance with the evidence of the

DW-1, who had shown presence of I.O. on 10.09.2013 at the

P.O. and in the aforesaid background, the finding of the I.O., no

blood spot was found, has got no bearing over the prosecution

case. So, judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the

learned lower Court is fit to be confirmed.

11. Victim was examined on 09.09.2013 at 2.10

A.M. at Referral Hospital, Islampur by PW-8, Dr. Dwarika
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
9/23

Prasad, who found the following:-

1) Lacerated wound with profused bleeding on

medial part of left arm tearing all muscles upto

bone. Patient referred to Biharsharif Sadar Hospital

for better treatment, investigation and also for

injury report.

2) Age of injury within one hour from time of

examination.

During cross-examination at Para-5, he has

stated that he had not mentioned the size of the injury. In Para-6,

he has stated that on account of profuse bleeding, the patient

was referred to Biharsharif. In Para-7, he has disclosed that

neither he had mentioned the nature of the injury nor the

weapon by which, injury was caused.

12. PW-7 is the Dr. Shreekant Prasad, who had

examined the victim on 09.09.2013 itself at Sadar Hospital,

Biharsharif. From the evidence, it is apparent that no timing is

there, which is also found supported with the injury (Exhibit-2).

The doctor after examining the injured found as follows:-

1) Lacerated wound 5″ x 3″ x muscle

deep with charring of margin present on left arm suggested

X-ray of left arm. A/P lateral view and nothing abnormal

has been found. Although, the reference was for nature of

injury, weapon so used, but these these have not been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
10/23

mentioned.

During cross-examination, at Para-4, he has

stated that charring injury may be possible from 3-4″. This

injury is not possible by hard blunt substance. This injury is also

not possible by falling on hard blunt substance and so, the

doctor had given indication by which weapon, this injury could

have been caused, being firearm.

13. PW-4 is the victim/ informant. Her status

also happens to be that of wife of the appellant. She has deposed

that the occurrence is about two years two months ago. It was

1.00 A.M. At that very moment, she was sleeping at her sasural.

Her father-in-law Chandrika Yadav, Raj Kishore and Dhananjay

Kumar came inside her room and began to abuse by saying that

not only you are an ugly rather you only begot daughter on

account thereof, you would not be allowed to remain. After

eliminating you, Raj Kishore will be re-married. She got down

from the bed and protested, whereupon they directed to leave

the place, otherwise also threatened that she will be murdered.

On an order of Chandrika Yadav, Raj Kishore Yadav shot at

causing injury over her left hand (the scar mark has been shown

to the Court). Just after firing, all the three escaped. After

sustaining injury, she fell down even then in order to save her

life, she ran there from towards the hospital. At hospital, doctor
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
11/23

was not present while Compounder was there, who bandaged.

Her mother, brother and bhabhi arrived and then thereafter,

police came, who recorded her fard-bayan, whereupon she had

put her R.T.I. In order to provide better treatment, she has been

referred to Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif. It has further been

disclosed that at an earlier occasion, against the torturous

activity of her husband, she had instituted a case wherein the

accused persons asked for an excuse followed with compromise

and under garb of compromise, she was taken to her sasural.

Identified the accused. During cross-examination at Para-7, she

has been tested over topography of the house. In Para-8, she has

stated that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and Nanad Rinku

Devi reside at her sasural. Then has shown presence of the

neighbours, shown boundary as Eastern side-house of Krishna

Sao, West-Rajendra Yadav, North-land of Kileshwarpati and

South-land of Ram Babu. Then, it has been disclosed that Raj

Kishore Yadav has got two more brothers and a sister. Doman

Yadav is his elder brother, whose house lies north to the house

of Raj Kishore. In Para-9, she has disclosed the length and

breadth of the room in which, she resides. At Para-10, she has

stated that she was living at her sasural for the last 20 days. Her

husband Raj Kishore had taken her away. On the day of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
12/23

occurrence, she along with her daughter was sleeping in the

room. Her husband was sleeping along with her father-in-law

outside the house. In Para-11, she has stated that on account of

being the summer season, the doors were not closed. Lamp was

burning. At Para-12, again she has been cross-examined with

regard to physical feature of the room occupied by her. In Para-

13, she has stated that how the accused persons have entered

inside the house, she is unable to say as her mother-in-law,

sister-in-law after closing the main gate, were also sleeping

inside the house. Who opened the main gate, she was unable to

say. When they began to abuse, then she woke up and then, had

seen her husband, father-in-law and Dhananjay Kumar. At that

very time, Raj Kishore was armed with pistol, rest were empty

hand. In Para-15, she has stated that before firing, there was

marpit. She was struck over her hand by the pistol. At the time

of firing, she as well as her husband was in front of each other.

At that very time, her daughter was sleeping over bed. In Para-

16, she has stated that first of all, she lifted her daughter, but

after hearing order of her father-in-law to kill, pushed her

daughter away, whereupon she also woke up and stood up.

Firing was made from a distance of two hands. In Para-17, she

has stated that after firing, there was uproar, but she is unable to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
13/23

say whether any person has arrived or not, because of the fact

that in order to save herself, she ran there from. She was unable

to disclose whether cartridge has passed through her hand.

Blood began to ooz and so, she ran. She had not taken her

daughter at that very moment. Later on, her daughter was

brought by her mother at the hospital. There was no second

firing. Chandrika Yadav disclosed that now, she is dead, then all

fled away. In Para-18, she has stated that the hospital is

coverable within 10-15 minutes from her sasural. Police met

with her at hospital. She had given fard-bayan at the hospital.

Statement of her brother, mother, Bhabhi was taken by the

police at hospital itself. She had not come to her sasural along

with police, but she is knowing that police had gone to her

sasural. In Para-19, she has stated that she had instituted two

cases before this case. She has also admitted that Raj Kishore

had also instituted a case. She has further stated that she is not

remembering whether any petition has been filed before the

learned lower Court after breakage of the compromise. She has

further stated that her Naihar is coverable within half an hour

from her sasural. She has further stated that she has come from

her Naihar to depose. Then has denied the suggestion that no

occurrence had taken place. She has further been suggested that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
14/23

she met with the aforesaid incident at somewhere else and

falsely implicated the members of her sasuralwala. She has

further been suggested that she is residing at Hulasganj after

solemnization of second marriage. She has further been

suggested that at the time of occurrence, she was at her Naihar.

14. PW-6 is the I.O. He has deposed that on

09.09.2013, he was S.I. of Islampur Police Station. After

registration of Islampur P. S. Case No.166 of 2013, the O/c has

entrusted the investigation to him. After taking of investigation,

he proceeded towards P.O. Inspected the place of occurrence,

recorded further statement of the informant, inspected the P.O.

as pointed out by the informant, which happens to be house of

the informant lying at Gwartoli of Barbigha lying at a distance

of two kilometer south from Islampur P.S. Boundary of the P.O.

has been shown as North-land of the informant, South-land of

Ram Babu Yadav, East-house of Krishna Yadav, West-house of

Rajendra Yadav. He also recorded statement of mother of the

informant at that very moment. Also recorded statement of

Mahendra Yadav and Ranju Devi, procured injury report,

received supervision note and then, after completing

investigation, submitted charge-sheet against Chandrika Yadav

and Dhananjay Kumar (exhibited all the relevant documents).
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
15/23

During cross-examination at Para-7, he has stated that the date

of occurrence is 09.09.2013, on that day, he had not conducted

night patrolling. He was entrusted with the investigation on 09 th

day itself at about 4.30 A.M. Then disclosed that he met with the

informant on 09.09.2013 at about 4.30 A.M. at hospital. At that

very moment, her mother Sakli Devi was present. At Para-8, he

has stated that he had recorded fard-bayan of Kamla Devi at the

hospital itself. He had examined other witnesses at Barbigha. In

Para-9, he has stated that he had not informed the family

members of Kamla Devi, after recording of the fard-bayan at the

hospital. Then, there happens to be contradiction relating to

statement of the witness Mahendra Yadav (PW-1). In Para-11,

he has stated that Kamla Devi stated in her statement that she

was a litigating term with Raj Kishore since before. In Para-12,

he had not inquired into whether both persons were litigating

since before. In Para-13, he has stated that he arrived at the P.O.

on 09.09.2013 at about 5.15 A.M. P.O. was shown to him by the

informant. In Para-14, he has stated that P.O. happens to be the

courtyard of the house of the informant. He had not found

blood, he had not found empty cartridge. In Para-15, he has

stated that he had not recorded statement of those persons

having presence in the surrounding. In Para-16, he has stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
16/23

that he had not taken statement of the independent witnesses.

Then, he has denied the suggestion that he has conducted

perfunctory, collusive investigation.

15. PW-1 is the brother of the informant, PW-2 is

the mother of the informant and PW-3 is the Bhabhi of the

informant. Admittedly, all of them are not an eye witness to

occurrence rather they have corroborated what they have

listened from the informant. However, they have substantiated

the conduct of the appellant whereunder he along with his

family members have treated the informant with cruelty and

torture and in the aforesaid background, cases were filed at the

end of both parties.

16. There happens to be specific disclosure at the

end of the I.O. (PW-6) that P.O. was shown by the informant. As

per evidence of the informant (PW-4) after sustaining injury,

there was profused bleeding from the wound. There also

happens to be specific disclosure that she ran there from to the

hospital in order to save her life. The evidence of PW-8, the

doctor present at Referral Hospital, Islampur suggest

examination of the victim on 09.09.2013 at about 2.10 A.M. and

further, from his evidence, it is evident that doctor has found

bleeding injury at the time of examination and so, was referred
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
17/23

to Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif. It is further evident that fard-

bayan was recorded on 09.09.2013 at about 3.00 A.M. From the

evidence of the PW-7, it is evident that victim was at the Sadar

Hospital, Biharsharif on 09.09.2013 itself. There happens to be

no evidence on record either at the end of prosecution or at the

end of accused with regard to leaving of hospital by the injured/

informant on 09.09.2013, nor the informant (PW-4) was cross-

examined on that very score, that she, after leaving hospital

accompanied the I.O. and she was present while I.O. was

inspecting P.O., which was nor the I.O. has deposed that from

the hospital he directly reached at P.O. along with informant

shown by her. In the aforesaid background, not only the

evidence of I.O. has become sketchy rather the proper

identification of the P.O. is found doubtful. Whatever been

incorporated at the end of the I.O., non-presence of blood or

empty cartridge at the P.O. has got no relevance as, the I.O. has

shown the P.O. at courtyard while P.O. is a room of the house,

which is found exposed from the evidence of injured, PW-4,

which never been visited by the I.O.

17. It is needless to say that the faulty

investigation will not cause dent in the prosecution case and that

happens to be consistent view by the Apex Court. In Yogesh
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-Section08-2019
18/23

Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh and others reported in (2017) 11

SCC 195, it has been held:-

“30. SectionIn C. Muniappan and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu,

(2010) 9 SCC 567, this Court explained the law on this

point in the following manner:

“55. There may be highly defective investigation in

a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is

any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any

benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue

is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself

cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such

designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or

lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and

confidence of the people in the criminal justice

administration would be eroded. Where there has been

negligence on the part of the investigating agency or

omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation,

there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to

examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses,

carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or

not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such

lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore,

the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny

in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case

cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
19/23

investigation.”

18. Now, coming to other evidence, certainly

PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are the Naiharwala of the victim (PW-4).

PW-5 is the person belonging to the P.O. village, has been

declared hostile. Therefore, the evidence of injured (PW-4) only

remains. SectionIn Chandrasekar and another vs. State with

SectionBalasubramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2017)

13 SCC 585, it has been held:-

“10. Criminal jurisprudence attaches great

weightage to the evidence of a person injured in the

same occurrence as it presumes that he was

speaking the truth unless shown otherwise. Though

the law is well settled and precedents abound,

reference may usefully be made to SectionBrahm Swaroop

v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 288 observing as

follows:

“28. Where a witness to the occurrence has

himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of

such a witness is generally considered to be very

reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an in-

built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the

crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s)

in order to falsely implicate someone.”

19. When the evidence of PW-4 has minutely
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
20/23

been gone through, it is apparent that from the suggestion

having been given at the end of the appellant under Para-20 is

suffice to acknowledge whereunder they have not controverted

the firearm injury having over the person of the informant. The

only contention is that she had sustained the same at some other

place, more particularly, while she was staying at her Naihar and

on that very score, the examination-in-chief as well as cross-

examination has minutely been scrutinized.

20. It is also evident that two DWs have been

examined at the end of the appellant. DW-1, Rajendra Prasad

and DW-2, Satyendra Prasad. DW-1 has stated that appellant/

accused happens to be his elder brother. He has been married

with Kamla Devi. Kamla Devi used to live at her Naihar. He has

further stated that his house lies west to the house of Raj

Kishore. He has further stated that on 09.09.2013, he was at his

house. Kamla Devi was not present at the house of Raj Kishore.

He has further stated that the wall of house of brother of Raj

Kishore as well as his house are adjacent to each other, though

they have separate passage to ingress and outgress. In Para-4, he

has stated that six months prior to 09.09.2013, Kamla Devi was

living at her Naihar. In the night of 10.09.2013, police had come

to the house of Raj Kishore at about 9-10 P.M. Police had come
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
21/23

to inquire about the firearm injury sustained by Kamla Devi.

Police had not inquired from him. Kamla Devi had instituted a

case at an earlier occasion also. At the time of occurrence, Raj

Kishore was employee at a company within Orissa province.

During cross-examination, he has stated that he is deposing in a

case relating to injury caused by firearm over the informant. So,

from the evidence of this DW, two things are visible, the first

thing with regard to houses being contiguous to each other, but

having separate place of ingress-outgress, he has not said that

the house is connected with door, window, then in that

circumstance, how he has come to know about the same and

plea of alibi has been shown. It is just to remember that

whenever a plea of alibi is taken, then in that circumstance, it

happens to be a burden over the accused to explain and in case

of failure, it gives an impression with regard to presence of the

accused at the P.O. in a manner as suggested by the prosecution.

21. DW-2 is Satyendra Prasad, who has deposed

that the house of Raj Kishore Yadav lies nearby his house. Raj

Kishore has been married at village-Budhanagar. He is not

remembering the name of his wife, but she primarily resides at

her Naihar. On the date of occurrence, he was at his house. He

had not seen Kamla Devi at the house. She was residing at her
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
22/23

Naihar for the last 4-5 months. Police had not inquired from

him. Kamla Devi had instituted a case against Raj Kishore. At

that very moment, Raj Kishore was living at Orissa. He was not

present at the house. During cross-examination at Para-6, he has

stated that the occurrence is of dated 09.09.2013. He is not

knowing what kind of treatment was offered to Kamla Devi.

Then, he denied the suggestion that Kamla Devi was taken to

her sasural after having the earlier case compromised.

22. Though, there happens to be an admitted

position that both the parties are on loggers-head since before

the occurrence, resultantly cases having at both the end. While

cross-examining PW-4, informant/ victim, she has not been

cross-examined over the factum of compromise relating to a

case for torture and cruelty and further, taking her to sasural

after effecting compromise nor during course of suggestion the

same has been controverted. Furthermore, the parties are none

else rather spouse. From the evidence of doctor as well as

informant, it is abundantly clear that PW-4 had sustained

firearm injury. It is further evident from the cross-examination

of PW-4, that she has been properly tested over place of

occurrence, the room being occupied by her. Defence could not

be able to controvert the same. That being so, considering the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.897 of 2016 dt.21-08-2019
23/23

sole evidence of PW-4, being an injured as recognized under

Section 134 of Evidence Act, corroborated by PW-7, PW-8 did

justify the finding recorded by the lower Court.

23. Consequent thereupon, this appeal is found

devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. The Appellant is

under custody, which he will remain till saturation of the period

of sentence.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
Vikash/-

AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 28.08.2019
Transmission Date 28.08.2019

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation