"Wrongfully Convicted? How the High Court Acquitted Birendra Yadav in a Double Murder Case"

 


Introduction

This case revolves around the alleged double murder of Maharani Devi and her three-year-old daughter, Madhu Kumari, in Purnea District, Bihar. The primary accused, Birendra Yadav, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, upon appeal, the High Court overturned the conviction due to a lack of conclusive evidence.

Background of the Case

Birendra Yadav, a resident of Jhouwari village, was married to Maharani Devi in 2006 following a love relationship. The couple had a daughter, Madhu Kumari. However, their marriage was troubled, and conflicts arose, allegedly due to domestic violence.

In 2009, a village panchayat meeting was held after a violent dispute between the couple, which seemingly fueled further resentment. On August 31, 2011, Maharani Devi and her daughter were found dead under suspicious circumstances, leading to Birendra Yadav’s arrest and conviction.

Key Allegations by the Prosecution

  1. Motive for Murder: The prosecution argued that Birendra Yadav, angered by past conflicts, murdered his wife and daughter.
  2. Cause of Death: Medical evidence indicated that both victims died from asphyxia due to strangulation.
  3. Witness Statements: The mother of the deceased, Sunaiyna Devi (P.W.11), accused Birendra Yadav of throttling them to death.
  4. Post-Mortem Report: The medical report confirmed the presence of ligature marks and fractures in the neck, supporting the strangulation theory.

Defense’s Stand and Evidence

  1. Denial of Crime: Birendra Yadav denied involvement, claiming that the deaths were either accidental or suicidal.
  2. Alibi: Witnesses stated that Birendra Yadav was in his field cutting grass at the time of the incident.
  3. Contradictions in Prosecution’s Evidence:
    • Multiple villagers (P.W.1, P.W.2, and others) stated that the deaths appeared to be suicides.
    • The first informant, Sunaiyna Devi, changed her statement, initially claiming she was informed by villagers but later asserting she personally saw the murders.
    • Several key witnesses turned hostile and refused to support the prosecution.

Key Observations of the High Court

  1. No Direct Evidence: The case lacked eyewitness testimony directly linking Birendra Yadav to the crime.
  2. Unreliable Witness Testimony:
    • The main witness, Sunaiyna Devi, gave inconsistent statements.
    • Many other witnesses either turned hostile or provided contradictory accounts.
  3. Weak Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution failed to establish the sequence of events leading to the alleged murders.
  4. No Presumption Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act: The Court ruled that since the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case, the burden of proof did not shift to the accused.

Verdict & Final Judgment

  • The High Court overturned the conviction due to insufficient evidence.
  • Birendra Yadav was acquitted of all charges under Section 302 IPC.
  • The Court ordered his immediate release unless required in another case.
  • Any fine amount paid by him was to be refunded.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of reliable evidence in criminal convictions. The High Court emphasized that mere suspicion is not enough for a conviction, and the prosecution must provide solid proof beyond reasonable doubt. With weak witness testimony, contradictory statements, and no direct evidence, the judgment rightfully favored acquittal.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM4NyMyMDE0IzEjTg==-xIczqGR6VTQ=