Grandfather's Life Sentence Reduced in Child Rape Case: High Court Balances Justice and Rehabilitation

 

A Comprehensive Look at Eyewitness Credibility, Medical Evidence, and the Failure of Alibi Defense

In a detailed and conclusive judgment delivered on September 11, 2024, the High Court of Judicature at Patna, through a division bench comprising Honourable Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Honourable Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar, dismissed the appeals of six individuals, thereby affirming their conviction and life sentences in a brutal double murder case. This case, Sathi P.S. Case No. 118 of 2016 (leading to Sessions Trial No. 418 of 2017), highlights the complexities of criminal trials, particularly concerning the appreciation of eyewitness testimony, the corroborative power of medical evidence, and the stringent requirements for proving an alibi defense. This summary aims to make the intricate legal proceedings accessible to a broader audience.

The Horrific Incident: A Land Dispute Turns Deadly

The prosecution's case is built upon the "Fardbeyan" (first information statement) of Mannan Yadav (PW-6), the informant, recorded on September 8, 2016. According to Mannan, at approximately 5:15 PM on September 8, 2016, he, along with his father Jhapas Yadav and uncle Jhagru Yadav, were resting at a "Chhathia Ghat Chabutra" (platform) after inspecting their agricultural field.

Suddenly, a group of individuals, including all six appellants (Shambhu Yadav, Banka Yadav, Dhruv Yadav, Garjan Yadav, Ram Parsan Yadav, and Guddu Yadav), along with several co-accused and 4-5 unknown persons, surrounded them. The informant stated that appellant Dhruv Yadav instigated the others, shouting that the victims were pursuing litigation over registered land and that they should be "finished today." Following this exhortation, Dhruv Yadav allegedly fired his gun, hitting Jhapas Yadav in the leg.

Mannan Yadav managed to hide in a nearby field and witnessed the unfolding horror. He saw appellant Rajendra Yadav (one of the co-accused, not an appellant in this specific appeal) fire at his uncle Jhagru Yadav, hitting his thigh. Simultaneously, Garjan Yadav, Ramdat Yadav, and Shivparsan Yadav (co-accused) assaulted his father and uncle with "farsa" (a type of axe), while Ramparsan Yadav, Guddu Yadav, Jawahar Yadav, Bachu Yadav, and Shambhu Yadav, along with others, indiscriminately attacked them with "lathi" (sticks) and "spear." Dhruv Yadav and Rajendra Yadav continued firing indiscriminately, causing injuries to the victims' heads and other body parts, resulting in fractures.

Upon seeing the accused flee after villagers arrived due to his shouts, Mannan rushed his injured father and uncle to Chanpatia Hospital. From there, due to his father's critical condition, he was sent directly to Bettiah but died en route. His uncle, Jhagru Yadav, was sent to Bettiah MJK Hospital and subsequently referred to Patna, but he also died while being prepared for transfer in the ambulance.

The motive for this brutal attack was stated to be a long-standing land dispute between the accused and the informant's families. The informant's grandfather had registered some land, which led to continuous quarrels, "Panchayti" (local council meetings), and threats from the accused side.

The Legal Journey: Charges, Trial, and Conviction

Based on Mannan Yadav's "Fardbeyan," Sathi P.S. Case No. 118 of 2016 was registered on September 9, 2016, against 11 named individuals (including the appellants) and 4-5 unknown persons. The charges included Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly with common object), 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 302 (murder), and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

After investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the six appellants, with the investigation remaining pending against the other co-accused. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, where charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 341/149, and 302/149 IPC, and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. All appellants pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.

During the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses:

• PW-1 (Tara Devi): Aunt of the informant.
• PW-2 (Rajdeo Pandit).
• PW-3 (Megha Yadav): Cousin of deceased Jhapas.
• PW-4 (Binod Yadav).
• PW-5 (Dina Nath Rai).
• PW-6 (Mannan Yadav): The informant and son of one deceased, nephew of the other.
• PW-7 (Dr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta): Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem examinations.
• PW-8 (Dr. Vijay Kumar): Another Medical Officer.
• PW-9 (Manjar Alam): Investigating Officer.

The prosecution also presented documentary evidence, including seizure lists, post-mortem reports of both deceased, and the "Fardbeyan" itself.

The defense, in turn, examined five witnesses and presented various documents, primarily FIRs and charge sheets from previous cases, to suggest a history of enmity and false implication, and to support their alibi defense.

The Trial Court, after considering the evidence and arguments, found all six appellants guilty under Sections 147 and 302/149 IPC, sentencing them to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 each under Section 302 IPC. Appellant Garjan Yadav received an additional two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC, and appellant Dhruv Yadav received three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All sentences were to run concurrently.

The Appeals: Challenges to Conviction

The appellants, through their respective counsels (Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, among others), challenged the trial court's judgment on several grounds:

1. Unreliable Eyewitnesses: They contended that none of the non-official witnesses (PW-1 to PW-6) were actual eyewitnesses. They argued that PW-1 to PW-5 were "chance witnesses" whose presence at the P.O. was not established, and their testimonies should not be relied upon.
2. Related Witnesses: PW-1, PW-3, and PW-6 were relatives of the deceased, and their evidence, therefore, should be viewed with suspicion.
3. Material Contradictions and Development of Statements: The defense alleged that prosecution witnesses had "developed their statements" during the trial, leading to material contradictions that rendered their testimonies unreliable.
4. False Implication and Previous Enmity: The appellants claimed they were falsely implicated due to a pre-existing land dispute and previous criminal cases between the two families.
5. Defective Investigation: They argued that the inquest report was prepared before the FIR, and the prosecution withheld the initial telephonic information given to the police, suggesting a manipulated narrative.
6. Alibi Defense: The appellants asserted that they were not present at the P.O. at the time of the incident, presenting defense witnesses to support their alibi.

High Court's Meticulous Analysis and Findings

The High Court, after thoroughly perusing the records and considering the submissions, embarked on a detailed analysis of the evidence, guided by established legal principles:

Principles of Evidence Appreciation:

• Chance Witnesses: The Court affirmed that while chance witnesses' evidence requires "cautious and close scrutiny," it cannot be dismissed merely because they are chance witnesses, provided their presence is adequately explained.
• Related Witnesses: The Court reiterated that the evidence of relatives cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship. Such evidence must be "weighed on the touchstone of truth" with care and caution.
• Contradictions and Discrepancies: The Court emphasized that "minor discrepancies on trivial matters" or "hyper-technical approach" should not lead to the rejection of evidence. Normal discrepancies are expected due to observation errors, memory lapses, shock, etc. Only discrepancies that "go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version" are fatal. Minor discrepancies can even indicate that witnesses are not tutored.
• Defective Investigation: A defect in investigation, by itself, is not a ground for acquittal unless it causes prejudice to the accused. Criminal trials should not be jeopardized by lapses of the Investigating Officer.
• Alibi Defense: The Court clarified that alibi is a rule of evidence (Section 11 of the Evidence Act) and does not lessen the prosecution's burden to prove the accused's presence. However, the burden to establish alibi lies on the accused, requiring "cogent and satisfactory evidence" and "strict scrutiny" to completely exclude the possibility of their presence at the crime scene.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Court reiterated that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not require mathematical precision but rather a high degree of probability that a prudent person would believe.

Witness Testimonies and Corroboration:

• PW-6 (Mannan Yadav - Informant): The Court found his testimony consistent with his "Fardbeyan." Despite cross-examination attempting to highlight minor inconsistencies regarding injuries and previous cases, he denied suggestions of false implication or that the deceased were criminals killed due to internal family disputes. His presence at the P.O. was maintained.
• PW-1 (Tara Devi): As a "grass cutter illiterate lady" present near the P.O., she supported the prosecution's case and identified the accused. Her cross-examination revealed minor details about her location and actions, but she denied false implication due to previous cases. The Court found her testimony credible.
• PW-2 (Rajdeo Pandit): He claimed to be a chance witness who had gone to inspect his land. He identified several accused and heard Dhruv Yadav's exhortation and the firing. While he couldn't recall all details or immediately flee, the Court found his account consistent with a chance witness observing a sudden, violent event.
• PW-3 (Megha Yadav): Cousin of the deceased, he corroborated the "Fardbeyan" and identified the accused. He stated he was at a distance but witnessed the assault. Despite being confronted with previous cases against his family by Dhruv Yadav, he denied false implication. The Court found his testimony reliable.
• PW-4 (Binod Yadav): A buffalo grazer, he corroborated the events and identified the accused. He also confirmed the seizure list in his presence. He admitted to being an accused in a previous case where Dhruv Yadav was a witness, but denied any litigation with the accused.
• PW-5 (Dina Nath Rai): Another chance witness, he supported the prosecution's version, identifying several accused. His cross-examination clarified his presence and observation of the events.

The High Court concluded that "all six non-official witnesses have seen the occurrence. Their presence on the place of occurrence is well established. They are also consistent and trustworthy. They inspire confidence of the Court. There are no material contradictions in their statements. Minor discrepancies are found to occur, more so, when the witnesses are villagers and illiterate."

Medical Evidence:

• PW-7 (Dr. Sanjay Gupta): Conducted post-mortem examinations on both deceased.
  • Jhapas Yadav: Suffered lacerated wounds on the skull, incised wounds and multiple abrasions on the right and left arms with fractures of radius and ulna, and a punctured lacerated wound (entry) and another lacerated wound (exit) on the left leg with fracture of tibia fibula. Injuries were caused by hard blunt substances, sharp objects, and fire-arms. Cause of death: hemorrhage and shock.
  • Jhagru Yadav: Suffered abrasions and deformity on the right arm with fracture of humerus, multiple abrasions on the right scapula, a punctured lacerated wound on the right thigh, lacerated wound on the right leg with fracture of tibia, and an incised wound and punctured lacerated wound on the left leg. Injuries caused by hard blunt and sharp objects.
• PW-8 (Dr. Vijay Kumar): Proved his signature on the post-mortem reports.

The medical evidence clearly corroborated the ocular evidence, showing that the deceased suffered multiple injuries, including gunshot wounds and injuries from sharp-edged weapons (like "farsa" and "bhala") and blunt objects ("lathi").

Investigating Officer (PW-9):

The I.O. inspected the P.O., found blood, and seized four live cartridges. He recorded statements of witnesses who supported the prosecution. The Court found no major defects in the investigation, no unnecessary delay in lodging the FIR or its transmission, and no delay in preparing inquest reports. The inquest reports of both deceased were prepared immediately at the hospital after their deaths, and the FIR was lodged after the death of the second deceased.

Defense's Alibi and Previous Enmity Claims:

The High Court found "no evidence of false implication or embellishment in the FIR." It noted that the appellants had not even taken the plea of alibi in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defense witnesses (D.W.1 to D.W.5) were found to be "not trustworthy." Their testimonies regarding the appellants' presence elsewhere were vague and lacked specific details (e.g., D.W.2 couldn't remember the name of the house owner where he and Banka Yadav allegedly worked, D.W.3 couldn't remember who was with him at Pasupati's house). The Court concluded that the defense failed to prove the plea of alibi, as the burden was on them to do so "with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the spot of the crime."

The Court also found a "strong motive of the appellants to eliminate the deceased due to enmity on account of land disputes and consequent litigations between the two sides," which was evident from the record.

The Final Verdict

Based on the overwhelming and consistent evidence from multiple eyewitnesses, corroborated by detailed medical findings and a lack of credible defense, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had "been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts." The Trial Court's conviction and sentence were deemed "rightly" passed, with "no illegality or infirmity."

Consequently, all appeals were dismissed, and the appellants remain in custody to serve their sentences. The records of the case were ordered to be returned to the Trial Court.

Significance of the Judgment:

This judgment is a testament to the robust judicial process in India, particularly in serious criminal cases:

1. Emphasis on Credibility, Not Just Relationship: It reinforces the principle that the testimony of related witnesses is not inherently biased and can be relied upon if it is consistent, trustworthy, and corroborated by other evidence. The Court's detailed analysis of each witness's account, separating credible observations from minor inconsistencies, is exemplary.

2. Power of Corroborative Evidence: The medical evidence played a crucial role in validating the nature and cause of injuries, aligning perfectly with the eyewitness accounts of a brutal assault involving firearms and sharp weapons.

3. Strict Scrutiny of Alibi: The case highlights the high burden on the defense to prove an alibi. Vague or unsubstantiated claims, especially when contradicted by strong prosecution evidence, will not suffice. The failure to even raise the alibi in Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements further weakened the defense.

4. Motive as a Supporting Factor: While motive is not always essential for conviction, its clear establishment in this case (the land dispute) provided a strong backdrop for the prosecution's narrative, explaining the animosity and the extreme violence.

5. Resilience of Justice System Against Lapses: The Court's stance on investigative defects—that they are not fatal unless they cause prejudice—ensures that the pursuit of justice is not derailed by minor procedural errors, upholding public faith in the criminal justice system.

In essence, the Patna High Court's decision in this double murder case serves as a powerful reminder that justice, though sometimes delayed, is meticulously pursued through a thorough examination of all available evidence, leading to the affirmation of accountability for heinous crimes.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM2MTUjMjAxOSMxI04=-jTKf1fRtRMc=