BIRENDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
STATE OF BIHAR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/convicted accused is challenging the Judgment and Order dtd. 29/11/2013 and 30/11/2013 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No.320 of 2012 by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-V, Purnea, thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life apart from directing him to pay fine of Rs.10000.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
(2.) Facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant/convicted accused can be summarized thus:
(a). Appellant Birendra Yadav is resident of village-Jhouwari within jurisdiction of Police Station-Banmankhi in Purnea District of Bihar. P.W.11 Sunaiyna Devi is also the resident of the same village and her house was located just in front of house of appellant Birendra Yadav. Maharani Devi (since deceased) was daughter of P.W.11 Sunaiyna Devi. As the appellant and Maharani Devi (since deceased) were having their respective houses just opposite to each other, love relations between them developed and ultimately in the year 2006, Maharani Devi married appellant Birendra Yadav.
(b). According to the prosecution case, out of this wedlock, Maharani Devi gave birth to a female child named Madhu Kumari (since deceased), who at the relevant time was aged about three years. It is case of the prosecution that appellant Birendra Yadav used to beat his wife Maharani Devi. After such incident in the year 2009, meeting of the Panchayat was called. Because of this incident, appellant/convicted accused Birendra Yadav became angry. Ultimately, at about 03.00 P.M. of 31/8/2011, appellant Birendra Yadav had committed murder of his wife Maharani Devi and his daughter Madhu Kumari by throttling.
(c). According to the prosecution, many villagers from village-Jhouwari rushed to the house of P.W.11 Sunaiyna Devi and informed her about the murders of her daughter Maharani Devi and her granddaughter Madhu Kumari. P.W.11 Sunaiyna Devi then rushed to the house of appellant Birendra Yadav and saw dead bodies of Maharani Devi and Madhu Kumari kept at the front yard of the house of appellant Birendra Yadav. She noticed injuries on necks of the dead bodies. She therefore lodged the F.I.R. on 31/8/2011 itself which has resulted in registration of the subject crime for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(d). During the course of investigation, the Investigator has recorded the statements of the witnesses. Inquest notes were taken after inspecting dead bodies. Those were then sent for post-mortem examination to the Sadar Hospital, Purnea, where autopsy came to be conducted by P.W.10 Dr. Umesh Kumar. On completion of investigation, the appellant came to be charge-sheeted.
(e). After committal of the case, charge for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be framed and explained to appellant/convicted accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial and in support, the defence has examined in all four witnesses.
(f). After hearing the parties, the learned trial court concluded that appellant Birendra Yadav committed murder of his wife Maharani Devi and his daughter Madhu Kumari. Accordingly, the appellant came to be convicted and sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraphs of this Judgment.
(3.) We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. He argued that there is no evidence to connect the appellant to the crime in question and evidence of P.W.11 Sunaiyna Devi is totally unreliable and untrustworthy. As against this, relying on the provisions of Sec. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the learned Prosecutor argued that appellant/convicted accused is presumed to have committed murder of his wife and the daughter. He has not explained how they died in his house and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.