ANJANI CHAUDHARY versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 26-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 227 
ANJANI CHAUDHARY 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2004 etc.) 
OCTOBER 26, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI 
KR. PRASAD, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Parricide - Dispute over 
landed property - A-1 was allegedly armed with a pistol and C 
a 'lathi'; A-2 with a 'farsa' and A-3 with a 'bhala' - Victim 
assaulted and killed on the spot - Conviction by courts below 
uls.302 on the basis of evidence of eye-witnesses - Appeals 
by A-1 and A-3 - Held: Since the instant matter involves 
close relatives belonging to farming families with deep set D 
animosities, some evidence beyond the ocular evidence is 
also required to be looked at - Medical evidence corroborated 
the presence of A-2 and A-3 as they were armed with a 'farsa' 
and a 'bhala' which could have caused the incised and 
penetrating wounds found on the dead body - The medical E 
evidence, however, did not support the presence of A-1 as 
there was no injury with a pistol or a 'lathi' on the body of the 
deceased - Appeal of A-3 dismissed while appeal of A-1 
allowed. 
Evidence - Chance witness - Reliability - Held: On F 
facts, reliable as he gave a very cogent explanation for his 
presence at the time of the murder. 
According to the prosecution, the three accused 
assaulted PW-2's brother with pistol, 'lathi', 'farsa' and G 
'bhala' and killed him on the spo~. The motive for the 
murder was stated to be dispute between brothers (and 
their family members) over landed property, The trial court 
held that the ocular evidence was. corroborated by the 
227 
H 
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A medical evidence; and further observing that there was 
no delay in the lodging of the FIR, convicted all the three 
accused under Section 302 IPC. The order of conviction 
was affirmed by the High Court. 
8 
A-1 and A-3 filed the instant appeals contending that 
PWs. 4 and 5 had not supported the prosecution and that 
the High Court had found that PW-14 (the wife of the 
deceased) was not an eye-witness as claimed by her, 
whereas PW-1 was a chance witness who belonged to a 
village situated at a distance of about 8 miles from the 
C place of the incident; the entire prosecution story rested 
upon PW-2's statement and as he admittedly had grave 
animosity with the appellants on account of the land 
dispute, his evidence could not be relied upon. It was 
further contended that the medical evidence did not 
D suppo?, the presence of A-1 as he was allegedly armed 
with a lathi' while no injury with a 'lathi' had been found 
on the deceased. 
Allow(ng the appeal of A-1 and dismissing the appeal 
E of A-3, the Court 
HELD: This is a case of parricide. It is clear that the 
incident was sparked off by a dispute between brothers 
and their family members pertaining to the land which 
had been gifted by mother of PW-2 to his wife which was 
F resisted by the accused as they too had laid claim to the 
said land. This is apparent from the depositions of PW-1 
and PW-2. PW-1 has also given a very cogent explanation 
for his presence at the time of the murder. In this view of 
the matter that PWs-4 and 5, who were related to l;>oth the 
G parties, had turned hostile is not surprising. However, in 
a matter which involves close relatives belonging to 
farming families with deep set animosities some evidence 
beyond the ocular evidence should also be looked for. 
In this case the medical evidence corroborates the 
H 
ANJANI CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR 
229 
presence of A-2 and A-3 as they were armed with a 'farsa' 
A 
and a 'bhala' which could have caused the incised and 
penetrating wounds found on the dead body. The 
medical evidence, however, does not support the 
presence of A-1 as .there was no injury with a pistol or a 
'lathi' on the body of the deceased. A-1 is directed to be 
B 
· acquitted. [Paras 7, 9) [232-C-G; 233-B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 140 of 2004. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.04.2003 of the High 
C 
Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1998 (D.B.) 
WITH 
Crl. Appeal No. 1739 of 2010. 
S.C. Patel, Jai Prakash Narayan Gupta, Pankaj Kr. Singh 
for the Appellant. 
Chandan Kumar (for Gopal Singh) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 
These appeals by way of special leave arise out of the 
D 
E 
following facts : 
F 
1. On 6th February, 1989 at about 2:45 p.m., the first 
informant Ram Pukar Chaudh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.