This document summarizes a significant legal case heard in the Patna High Court, specifically Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 409 of 2024. The case revolves around the murder of Ajay Kumar Yadav, a gas agency owner, and the subsequent legal proceedings against those accused of his death. This summary aims to break down the complex legal jargon and present the facts in a way that is accessible and understandable to a wider audience.
The Incident: A Fatal Evening
The tragic events unfolded on April 8, 2015. Ajay Kumar Yadav, the deceased, was returning home from his gas agency, Krishna Gas Agency, along with his manager, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (who later became PW-1, Prosecution Witness 1). As they approached the lane near Anand Hotel, the manager heard a gunshot. He then witnessed Ajay Kumar Yadav falling from his motorcycle. Rushing to his side, the manager saw blood. A known individual, Sanjay Singh, the proprietor of a petrol pump, quickly transported the injured Ajay Kumar Yadav to the nearest hospital. His family arrived at the hospital shortly thereafter. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on the same day, initiating the legal process.
The Accusation: A Conspiracy Unveiled?
The appellant in this case is Kaushalaya Devi, the wife of the deceased, Ajay Kumar Yadav. She filed the FIR, accusing Girja Nandan Rai (aged 70), his son Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Kumar Ranjan (aged 34), and another son Mithilesh Kumar Rai @ Pinku (aged 38) – collectively referred to as Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 – along with other unnamed accused persons, of murder (Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code), as well as offenses under the Arms Act (Section 27).
The core of the prosecution's case, as presented by the appellant's counsel, was that the private respondents (Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4) and others conspired to kill Ajay Kumar Yadav. It was alleged that they even hired professional killers to carry out the murder. The motive, according to the appellant, stemmed from a dispute over the gas agency business. Girja Nandan Rai was a long-standing partner of the deceased in the gas agency, a partnership that had reportedly lasted for 20 years with initially good relations. However, the appellant claimed that Girja Nandan Rai's sons, Rajeev Kumar and Mithilesh Kumar, began interfering in the agency's daily operations. More critically, they allegedly engaged in the black-marketing of gas, which was illegal. Ajay Kumar Yadav reportedly objected to these illicit activities, leading to a breakdown in their relationship and, ultimately, the alleged conspiracy to murder him.
The appellant's counsel also claimed that Call Detail Records (CDR) supported the prosecution's assertion that money (four lakh rupees) was paid for the murder. Furthermore, the depositions of various witnesses were presented as evidence supporting the prosecution's narrative.
The Trial and the Witnesses: A Closer Look at the Evidence
The investigation led to the filing of a charge-sheet against Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 and other accused persons. Since the case was triable by a Sessions Court, it was committed for trial. During the trial, the prosecution presented twelve witnesses, including a doctor and the Investigating Officer (IO). After the prosecution's evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Let's delve into the testimonies of some key witnesses:
PW-1, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava (Manager of Krishna Gas Agency): He was present at the scene of the incident. He testified that he heard a gunshot and saw the deceased fall from his motorcycle. However, crucially, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not see who fired the gun. He also stated that there was no dispute between the deceased and Opposite Party No. 2 (Girja Nandan Rai) from his perspective. He was the sole witness to the immediate aftermath of the shooting.
PW-2 (Father-in-law of the deceased): He stated that the deceased and Opposite Party No. 2 had been partners for 20 years with a good relationship, but recently, differences arose due to Opposite Party No. 2's alleged black-marketing. He claimed that Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 then conspired to murder the deceased. However, in cross-examination, he revealed that he learned about the death through a newspaper.
PW-3: He saw a gathering near Anand Hotel after the shooting and spoke about the relationship between the deceased and Opposite Party No. 2. In cross-examination, he admitted he did not see any bloodstains at the scene and had no knowledge about the deceased's motorcycle.
PW-4 (Brother of the deceased): He also testified about the strained relationship due to the sons' interference and black-marketing. He stated that on April 8, 2014 (a year before the incident), the deceased called him, mentioning that Mithilesh Kumar Rai and Rajiv Kumar Rai, along with others, were loitering around the gas agency. He later learned of his brother's gunshot injury and subsequent death. He accused Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 of hiring criminals.
PW-5 (Friend of the deceased): Not an eyewitness, he stated there was a dispute and that Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 were planning to grab the gas agency and kill the deceased.
PW-6, Shambhu Prasad Yadav: Also not an eyewitness, he reiterated that Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 were interfering in the business and trying to grab the gas agency, and that they hired criminals to commit the murder.
PW-7, Dr. Tabrez Aziz: This doctor examined the deceased at 10:05 PM on April 8, 2015. He noted entry and exit wounds consistent with a firearm injury on the skull. He stated the injury was within 6 hours old. In cross-examination, he admitted he did not receive a police requisition and that the color of the injury was not mentioned in the report.
PW-8 (Wife of the deceased): Not an eyewitness, she gave a similar statement about the dispute, the sons' interference, black-marketing, and the deceased's protest. She also mentioned that a "Panchayati" (community meeting) was held to resolve the dispute.
PW-9, Dr. Pankaj Kumar: This doctor conducted the post-mortem examination on April 15, 2015. He detailed multiple ante-mortem and internal injuries, including a stitched wound, entry and exit wounds from a firearm, and evidence of a craniotomy (surgical opening of the skull). He concluded the cause of death was a head injury from a firearm, with the time since death being 6 to 24 hours approximately. In cross-examination, he noted the body was operated on and bandaged when it arrived, and that certain details like the age of hematoma were not in the post-mortem report.
PW-10, Subodh Kumar (Second Investigating Officer): He took over the investigation on June 30, 2015, and submitted a charge-sheet against other accused persons (Ravi Kumar Sahani, Sudama Sahani, Rajan Sahani, Krishna Yadav, and Chandan Ram). Crucially, he stated that he obtained the CDR of Girja Nandan Rai's mobile number but found "no clue." He also found "no evidence regarding the black marketing of gas cylinders" and stated there was "not any type of interference by the Girja Nandan Rai and his two sons in the Gas Agency."
PW-11 (Third Investigating Officer): He submitted the charge-sheet against Girija Nandan Rai, Rajeev Kumar, and Mithilesh Kumar on April 27, 2016, under the relevant sections.
PW-12, Dhananjay Kumar (First Investigating Officer): He was the initial IO. He visited the hospital and the crime scene, where he found a blood spot. He arrested Ravi Sahani and Sudama Sahani and recorded their confessional statements. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not take the CDR of the mobile phones of the arrested accused (Ravi Kumar, Krishna Yadav, and Sudama Sahani) to verify if they had communicated with Girja Nandan Rai, Rajiv Rai, and Mithilesh Rai. He also stated that Girja Nandan Rai, Rajiv Rai, and Mithilesh Rai had not interfered in the gas agency business, and no complaint had been received against them from the deceased.
The Acquittal: A Lack of Direct Evidence
After considering all the evidence, the Trial Court acquitted Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 of the charges. This decision was then challenged by the appellant (Kaushalaya Devi) in the Patna High Court.
The High Court, in its judgment, meticulously reviewed the facts and the depositions of all witnesses, including the doctors and the Investigating Officers. The Court highlighted several critical points that led to the acquittal:
Reliance on Confessional Statements: The Court found that Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 were implicated in the case primarily "only on the basis of confessional statements of other accused persons." It is a well-established principle of law that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for conviction against another accused, especially without corroborating evidence.
Lack of Eyewitness Testimony: The informant (PW-1, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava), despite being present near the scene, "has also not seen the incident and has only heard gun shot firing and thereafter, he saw the deceased fallen from his motorcycle." This means there was no direct eyewitness account linking Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 to the actual act of shooting.
Failure to Establish Direct Connection: The prosecution "failed to establish a direct connection of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 to the alleged occurrence." This is a fundamental requirement in criminal cases – the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused were directly involved in the commission of the crime.
Contradictory IO Testimony: The testimony of PW-10 (Subodh Kumar), the second Investigating Officer, was particularly damaging to the prosecution's case against Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4. He explicitly stated that he found "no clue" from the CDR of Girja Nandan Rai, "no evidence regarding the black marketing of gas cylinders," and "not any type of interference by the Girja Nandan Rai and his two sons in the Gas Agency." Similarly, PW-12 (Dhananjay Kumar), the first IO, also stated that there was no interference in the business by the accused and no complaints against them from the deceased. These statements from the investigating officers directly contradicted the motive and involvement alleged by the appellant and some other prosecution witnesses.
The High Court's Verdict: No Interference
The Patna High Court, after its thorough review, concluded that "the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned order." The Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal dated February 12, 2024. Consequently, the appeal filed by Kaushalaya Devi was dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Conclusion: Justice and the Burden of Proof
This case serves as a crucial reminder of the principles of criminal justice, particularly the burden of proof that lies with the prosecution. While the death of Ajay Kumar Yadav is undoubtedly a tragedy, the legal system requires concrete evidence to establish guilt. The High Court's decision underscores that mere suspicion, confessional statements of co-accused without independent corroboration, or inconsistent witness testimonies are insufficient to secure a conviction. The prosecution's inability to directly link Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 to the crime, coupled with the investigating officers' findings that contradicted the alleged motive and involvement, ultimately led to their acquittal. This outcome highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding the presumption of innocence and ensuring that convictions are based on solid, admissible evidence.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM0MDkjMjAyNCMxI04=-1CC28fXgcjk=
0 Comments