In Upendra Yadav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court’s Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Kumar Manish delivered a 94-pagelong judgement dated October 13, 2026, wherein, it concluded: “114. In ultimate analysis, we find that, though, it is a case of unfortunate killing of four persons in the dead of night, due to complete indifferent attitude of the investigating agency, proper and fair investigation could not take place. We can see on the face of the materials on the record that the administration, responsible to conduct a free and fair investigation, had a different plan whereunder they remained totally inactive, grossly negligent and in the process did not abide by their own instructions/guidelines etc. in the matter of investigation of a criminal case….116. In result, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court and acquit the appellants of the charges giving them benefit of doubt. The appellants are said to be in custody, they shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 117. These appeals are allowed. 118. Before we part with this judgment, it would be necessary to observe that, though, it is a case of unfortunate killing of four persons in the dead of night, due to complete indifferent attitude of the investigating agency, proper and fair investigation could not take place. Further, we can see on the face of the materials on the record clearly show that the administration, responsible to conduct a free and fair investigation, had a different plan whereunder they remained totally inactive, grossly negligent and in the process did not abide by their own instructions/guidelines etc. in the matter of investigation of a criminal case…." The judgement was authored by Justice Prasad.
Justice Prasad issued directions to the State. It reads: "121. In recent times, this Court has given directions to the Department of Home, Government of Bihar and the DGP, Bihar to look into the matters in which due to lapses on the part of the Investigating Officers, acquittals have taken place. It is not known whether the orders of this Court are being complied with and the directions in this regard have yielded any significant result. In the opinion of this Court, it is high time for the Department of Home, Government of Bihar, the DGP, Bihar and the Director, Directorate of Prosecution to sit together and review its policy in this regard. 122. We are of the opinion that the manner in which the Investigation Agency has conducted the investigation negligently, which has been discussed in preceding paragraphs, would be required to be reviewed by a team of Senior Police Officers. 123. We direct the Director General of Police, Bihar to constitute a three-member committee of Senior Police Officers of repute to take a view on the manner in which the investigation was done by the I.O. and based on that report, take an appropriate view of the matter in administrative side within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this Judgment. 124. The action taken in this regard be informed to the appellants. The appellants shall be at liberty to pursue the matter. 125. This Court calls upon the Department of Home, Government of Bihar to apprise the Court as to its policy in the matter of reviewing the cases where lapses on the part of the prosecution and the investigation have been pointed out by this Court. In how many cases inquiries have been instituted and with what result be informed to this Court within one month from today. Such report of the Department of Home shall be placed before this Court for perusal even as these appeals stand allowed. 126. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the Department of Home Government of Bihar, Office of the Director General of Police, Bihar and the Director, Directorate of Prosecution, Government of Bihar.”
The appeal was heard and adjudicated along with the appeals in Binda Yadav @ Binda Lal Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Mithilesh Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Chandraghosh @ Chandrabhushan Singh @ Chandragosh Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Ajay Yadav & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and Ramkrishna Yadav @ Krishna Kumar & Anr.The State of Bihar.
These appeals were preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated April 3, 2023 and the order of sentence dated April 12, 2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad in Sessions Trial Case No. 65 of 1998 arising out of Karpi (Arwal) P.S. Case No. 68 of 1996. By the impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. By the impugned order, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 302/34 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 148 IPC and further, under Section 307/34 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.3,000/- each. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
The prosecution case was based on the fardbeyan of informant Shiv Narayan Singh (P.W 12). The fardbeyan was recorded by S.I. Laliteshwar Pandey (P.W 27) Officer in-charge of Sahar Telpa (O.P.) on August 9, 1996 at 5.00 am at Keyal Aahar near place of occurrence. The informant alleged that there is a big Ahar situated in north-west side of his village where water get stored for irrigation, the villagers of Asadhi used to cut the Ahar and, therefore, due to aforesaid reason they were watching bandh and on the said night, the informant along with Bharat Singh (deceased) Manger Singh (deceased), Ram Niwas Singh (deceased) and Nawlesh Singh (deceased), Pramod Kumar (injured P.W 13), Karu Kurmi (P.W 2), Gung Kurmi (P.W 3) and Ravi Kurmi (P.W 21) were watching the said Ahar and they were in the Jhopari (hut) and on the alleged date in night i.e. September 8, 1996 at 11 pm, they heard movement (Ahat), he made query “who are you”, then 30-40 unknown persons who were wearing half pant and ganji, came near the Jhopera armed with rifle and gun and one person told that they belong to a Party and asked them to be mum. Further it is alleged that some persons came from western side and some remained in Eastern side. Further it is alleged that from western side one person came and took a lathi from Jhopari and assaulted Karu Kurmi, he also started assaulting Bharat Singh with lathi and further one person who was standing on eastern side flashed the torch and another person standing by the side of that person fired with rifle at Manger Singh causing injury on his right eye, the said person caused firearm injury to Bharat Singh on right hand and on neck and thereafter, the another person caused fire-arm injury to Ram Niwash Singh on right neck who died on the way to hospital and the same person caused fire-arm injury to Navlesh Singh causing injury on his neck. According to the informant, the same person also caused fire-arm injury to injured Pramod Kumar who was brought to Hospital, Jehanabad and further an another person assaulted Premnath Singh on his hand by lathi and thereafter, they went towards western side from the Bandh. It is further alleged that fifteen to thirty minutes after going of the accused persons, the informant, Bhola Singh, Premnath Singh, Karu Kurmi, Gung Kurmi, Ravi Kurmi were going towards eastern side of the village and on the way so many persons met in the raasta who were coming towards Bandh after hearing the sound of firing and thereafter they came to Jhopari and flashed the torch and found that Manger Singh, Nawlesh Singh and Bharat Singh had already died, Ram Niwas Singh and Pramod Singh were in injured condition. Some of them were crying and then some remained there for watching the dead body and some persons took Pramod Singh and Ram Niwash Singh to Hospital and some persons went to police for informing. Further, later on he got to know that Ram Niwas Singh died in the way and Premnath Singh was taken to Jehanabad Hospital. Further he also got to know that one accused person sustained fire-arm injury who was taken away by the accused persons and in clear words the informant stated in the fardbeyan that this crime has been committed by Majdoor Kisan Sangram Parishad (M.K.S.P) Extremists, the informant and his associates have seen some of the accused persons from close range and they claimed to identify them by face, if shown to them. The fardbeyan was recorded by S.I Laliteshwar Pandey (P.W 27) on which Premnath Singh (P.W 8) also signed.
On the basis of the fardbeyan Karpi P.S. Case No. 68 of 1996 dated August 9, 1996 was registered under Sections 302, 307, 326, 342, 323, 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against unknown 30-40 M.K.S.P. extremists. After investigation police submitted chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 79 of 1996 dated November 15, 1996 against twenty four accused persons, namely, (1) Dharm Dev Yadav, (2) Dhananjay Yadav, (3) Sushil Kumar, (4) Rajaram Yadav, (5) Mithlesh Yadav, (6) Bipin Yadav, (7) Rajendra Yadav, (8) Paras Yadav, (9) Ram Krishan Yadav @ Krishan Kumar, (10) Ajay Yadav, (11) Baijnath Yadav, (12) Bhagwan Yadav, (13) Ramnarayan Yadav, (14) Chandraghosh @Chandrabhushan Singh, (15) Baleshwar Yadav, (16) Daya Singh, (17) Satyendra Singh, (18) Vishwanath Singh, (19) Upendra Yadav, (20) Binda Yadav, (21) Naresh Yadav, (22) Ramraj Singh, (23) Basant Yadav (absconder) and (24) Nagendra Yadav (absconder).
By order dated January 18, 1997 cognizance of the offences under Sections 302, 342, 323, 307, 212, 201/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was taken. Sufficient materials were found to proceed against them. Thereafter, vide order dated January 19, 1998, the Magistrate directed the Office to prepare the police papers for supply to the accused persons in attendance. The Magistrate observed that all the processes were exhausted for securing presence of two absconded accused persons namely Nagendra Yadav and Basant Yadav and disposed of the Trial No. 453 of 1998 relating to the above two accused persons declaring them absconder and directed to deposit the records in the record room. The trial No. 302 of 1997 pertaining to rest of the twenty two accused were committed to the court of sessions where trial court numbered the trial as Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1998. Charges were read over and explained to the twenty two accused persons in Hindi which they denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1998 vide order dated July 21, 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
During trial, accused, namely, Raja Ram Yadav died and proceeding against him stood abated vide order dated November 16, 2011. Further, Paras Yadav died on January 18, 2023 in the hospital and vide order dated February 2, 2023, proceeding against him also abated. So far as one absentee accused Ram Narayan Yadav is concerned, vide order dated December 16, 2014, separate record was opened against him being Sessions Trial No. 85 of 2014. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twenty seven witnesses and exhibited several documents.
Justice Prasad observed:"The I.O’s of this case damaged the prosecution case by not following the safe rule of prudence to go for T.I.P. In absence of T.I.P., there is no corroborative evidence to the testimony of these witnesses on the identification. 101. This Court finds that both the I.O.s failed in their duty to conduct a bonafide fair investigation in this case. They decided not to apply for T.I.P. Even the senior police officers like Superintendent of Police did not supervise the ongoing investigation, they failed to ensure proper and fair investigation. It seems they were bent upon hushing up the whole prosecution case right from beginning. 102. In the kind of evidence present on the record, it is evident that in a case of brutal murder of four persons, the investigation was not proper, even as the informant had disclosed in the fardbeyan that the villagers from Asadhi village used to breach/cut the ahar which serves as storage of water for irrigation and that the accused were persons of sangathan and the name of Dhananjay Singh and other accused who were resident of village had come in course of investigation of the case, no effort was made to conduct a raid in their houses to seize the firearms which were used in the occurrence."
Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna who is an amicus curiae in the special laws/courts matter said, "The High Court intervenes whenever it finds that there were lapses on the part of the prosecution and there was negligent investigation in cases have erred in their approach toward offenders, and acted contrary to law settled by the Supreme Court." He added: "Now Bihar's Department of Home is under obligation to apprise High Court about the number of cases where inquiries have been instituted after the Court pointed out lapses of prosecution and investigation. Justice Prasad's judgement is a lesson in how to write a judgement for all the judges of the High Court and the trial court."
No comments:
Post a Comment