MALHU YADAV AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 01-05-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MALHU YADAV AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
MAY I, 2002 
B 
[R.P. SETHI AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Criminal Law: 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 read with 149, 379, 225, 109, 324, 
C 323, 147 and 148-Convictio~Onfacts, scujjle between parties over uprooting 
of crops on victims land by one of the accused resulting in assault on victim, 
his family members and informant leading to the death of the victim-First 
Information Report-Investigation-Trial Court convicting all the accused 
persons for various offences-High Court upholding conviction-On appeal, 
D held on the basis of evidence on record, post mortem report and recovery of 
weapons, accused persons not entitled to total acquittal-Conviction under 
various offences modified. 
E 
F 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Concurrent findings of facts-
.,.. 
Interference with-Discussed. 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day informant noticed 
accused person 1 and 3 uprooting the crops on the victim's land. He caught 
A-1 which resulted in scuffle between them attracting attention of other 
accused and members of victim's family. Accused persons asked the victims 
and his family members to release A-1 but the sa~e was refused. As a result 
accused persons viz A-4 followed by A-3, then A-2 followed by A-7 assaulted 
one 'S'-the victim, on alleged exhortation of A-5. 'S' received various 
injuries and died on the spot due to the same. When father of 'S', his Cather-
in-law and PW-5 tried to lend support by lifting 'S', A-6, A-2 assaulted 
father of 'S', A-5 and A-7 assaulted PW-5. A-6 also assaulted PW-10 
G informant which made him let loose A-1 held by him. It is alleged that A-
l took away the uprooted crops. PW-6 and his mother took deceased's 
father and PW-5 to hospital for treatment. PW-IO-informant alongwith 
others took the dead body of 'S' to Police Station. On the basis of statement 
of the informant case was registered against all seven accused. Investigations 
were carried out. On the basis of the evidence, trial court convicted all the 
H 
676 
-' 
MALHU Y ADA V v. ST A TE OF BIHAR 
677 
accused persons, A-1 under Section 379 IPC, A-2 to A-7 under Section 302 A 
read with Section 149 and Section 225, in addition A-5 under Section 109, 
A-2 and A-6 under Section 324 JPC, A-5 and A-7 under Section 323 and 
Section 147, A-2 to A-4 and A-6 under Section 148 IPC. High Court 
confirmed the conviction. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that the genesis or origin of the incident has B 
not been properly presented and also the prosecution failed to substantiate 
the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, read with Section 
... "f 
149. On the facts, Section 149 had no applicability at all. The version of 
PWs with reference to the occurrence, the place and the manner of assault 
and inflicting of injuries belies their claim and also casts serious doubts on C 
the veracity and credibility of the materials. The serious omissions on the 
part of the Investigating Officer to secure the alleged blood stained earth 
seen by him at the place of occurrence or the recovery of the crops said to 
have been removed, shatters the prosecution case. The essential ingredients 
.. 
of an offence under Section 379 against the first accused, ingredients to 
attract Section 302/149 IPC against other accused and also the ingredients D 
of other offences under which the accused persons are convicted, are not 
proved, thus the conviction was not justified . 
Respondent-State contended that concurrent findings recorded by 
both the courts below on a proper appreciation of the materials on record E 
do not call for interference and the grievance of the appellants is not well 
merited and thus the appeal has no substance. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Though the claim for total acquittal of the accused F 
persons and complete exoneration from any liability is not well-merited, 
the grievance of the accused persons cannot be said to be entirely devoid 
of merit to some extent. (686-Di 
2. By projecting the events and occurrence, subject-matter of the 
counter complaint lodged with the police, there is no merit in the challenge G 
made by appellants with regard to occurrence and it has been rightly 
rejected by the courts below. Prosecution witnesses' statement regarding 
occurrence is consistent, truthful and reliable and despite certain minor 
discrepancies on certain significant matters courts below accepted the same. 
Neithe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.