In Barun Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria passed a 2-page long order dated January 29, 2026 wherein, it concluded:"....we direct the respondent-State to consider and decide the petitioner’s case for premature release/ remission expeditiously. 3. List the matter on 16.07.2026." The order recorded that "....the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State, that petitioner’s case for pre-mature release/ remission is under consideration which shall be decided in accordance with provisions of the Bihar Prison Manual."
In Barun Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2023), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Rajiv Roy delivered a 11-page long judgement dated May 16, 2023, wherein it had concluded: "15. After having gone through the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, we do not find any justifiable reason to doubt the veracity of the depositions made by the prosecution's witnesses at the trial in the facts and circumstance as noted above. In our view, based on the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, the trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the IPC for killing his father and his nephew in the wake of a dispute arising out of partition in the family and injuring PW-8. 16. We accordingly do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed." The High Court's judgement was authored by Justice Singh.
The appeal before the High Court was preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction dated June 2, 2015 and order dated June 10, 2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Supaul, in a Sessions Trial of 2010 which arose out of Jadia P.S. case f 2010, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code for rigorous imprisonment of 3 years, 10 years and for life respectively. He was fined Rs 10,000/ each under Sections 307 and 302. All the sentences are running concurrently.
The prosecution's case as per the fardbeyan of the informant (PW-7) was that her father-in-law Shiv Ram Yadav (the deceased) had three sons viz. Arun Yadav (PW-8), Tarun Yadav (PW-2) and Barun Yadav (the appellant). Consequent upon disputes raised by the appellant, Shiv Ram Yadav (the deceased) had partitioned the joint family property in equal shares amongst the coparceners. On August 15, 2010 at about 03:30 am, when the informant was sleeping with her daughter in her house and, her father-in-law, Shiv Ram Yadav (the deceased), brother-in-law, Arun Yadav (PW-8) with his son Raj Kumar and the daughter of Arun Yadav, Arti kumari (aged eight years, PW-3) over a machaan made of bamboos at the door, PW-3 suddenly came crying to tell the informant that his uncle (the appellant) was assaulting her grandfather (Shiv Ram Yadav) and Raj Kumar (son of Arun Yadav also a deceased) with dabia (a sharp cutting heavy weapon). The informant and her daughter Puja rushed towards the machaan and noticed the appellant, Ashok Yadav and another person inflicting dabia blows over the deceased Shiv Ram Yadav, Raj Kumar and Arun Yadav. On alarm being raised by the informant and her daughter, the villagers assembled and saw the accused persons fleeing away. The reason behind the occurrence as mentioned in the FIR was that the appellant was not satisfied with the share allotted to him and used to demand a further amount of Rs. 50,000/- as his share.
In the previous night, accused Ashok Yadav along with an unknown person had been seen taking meal in the house of the appellant, who too was involved in the commission of the offence. The police upon completion of investigation, submitted its chargesheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the IPC. The court, after taking cognizance of the offences committed the case for trial. The trial court framed the charges for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the IPC. As the appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried, he was put on trial.
The High Court recorded that the occurrence in question took place on August 16, 2010 at 03:30 am, the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 06:15 am and the inquest report was prepared soon thereafter at 06:30 am. Prompt recording of fardbeyan, preparation of inquest report and registration of FIR normally obviates chance of false implication of a person upon due deliberation. The inquest report clearly suggests that the injury was caused by sharp cutting heavy weapon which corroborates the prosecution's case as disclosed in the FIR and subsequently at the trial. The post-mortem examination also supports the prosecution's case of the ante-mortem injuries caused on the body of the deceased persons by sharp cutting weapon. The child witness, who is an eyewitness and was sleeping with her father at machan appears to be consistent in her deposition in whose presence the occurrence had taken place.animosity arising out of dispute over the respective shares of the joint family property upon partition cuts both ways and appears to be the apparent reason why the appellant committed the ghastly murder of his father and son of his full brother.
No comments:
Post a Comment