NATHUNI YADAV AND ORS versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 20-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

NA1HUNI YADAV AND ORS 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR 
DECEMBER 20, 1996 
[DR. AS. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.) 
B 
Criminal Law : 
Penal Code, 1860 : Section 300. 
Murder-Appreciation of evidence-Moonless night-{dentification of C 
assailants-Assault committed on roofless terrace-Assailants not strangers 
to inmates of tragedy bound house-Neighbours rnshed to scene of incident 
and deposed that victims me11tioned names of accused as assailants who 
shot at victims-Held, eye wit11esses well acquai11ted with physiognomy of 
each of the assailants-It could not be assumed that it would not have been D 
possible for victims to see the assaila11ts or that there was possibility for • 
making a wrong identification of killers-Evidence Act, 1872, S.9. 
Evidence Act, 1872: Section 157. 
Shoot out in neighbouring house-lnmates reached scene of incident E 
and stated that victims mentioned names of accused as assailants-Held, 
such an evidence might not be substantive evidence but had utility at trial as 
it would fall under Section 157-What was important was that interval 
between incident and utterance of statement must not be such as to afford 
occasion for reflection or even contemplation. 
F 
Section 9-Motive-Held, motive for a criminal act need not necessarily 
be proportionately grave to do grave crimes-lt was quite possible that 
emotion impelled to commit crime would remain undiscoverable-Sometime 
motive established might appear to be a weak one-That by itself not suffi-
cient to lead to any inference adverse to prosecution-Penal Code, 1860, G 
Section 300. 
Words and Phrases : 
''.At or about the time'L- Meaning of-{n the context of Sectio/i 157 of 
the Evide11ce Act, 1872. 
H 
905 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS(1996) SUPP.10 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants were acquitted of an offence under Section 302 of the 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Sessions Court. However, the High Court 
had reversed the acquittal and convicted and sentenced the appellants to 
undergo imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, the victim, his wife and other members 
of his family were sleeping on the open terrace of his residential building 
on a moonless night. It was then that the appellants-accused lurked into 
the house and reached the terrace. The victim woke up and saw the 
appellants armed with guns standing close by. The appellants opened fire 
at the victim thereby injuring him and shot at his wife who fell dead. 
C Hearing the sound of hubbub their neighbour woke up and asked from his 
terrace as to what was happening. Then the appellants fired at the neigh· 
boor who fell dead. Many neighbours rushed to the scene of incident and 
stated that the victim and other members of his family mentioned the 
names of the appellants as the assailants who shot at them. 
D 
E 
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the accused persons it 
was contended that there was no possibility at all for the witnesses to 
identify the appellants as it was a moonless night; and that the appellants 
had no motive to commit the murder. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1.. The proximity at which the assailants would have 
confronted with the injured, the possibility of some light reaching there 
from the glove of stars, and the fact that the murder was committed on a 
roofless terrace are germane factors to be borne in mind while judging 
F whether the victims could have had enough visibility to correctly identify 
the assailants. Over and above those factors, it must be borne in mind the 
further fact that the assailants were no strangers to the inmates of the 
tragedy bound house, the eye witnesses being well acquainted with the 
physiognomy of each one of the killers. It cannot be assumed that it would 
not have been possible for the victims to see the assailants or that there 
G was possibility for making a wrong identification of them. Even the as· 
sailants had enough light to identify the victims whom they ta~etted 
without any mistake from among·those who were sleeping on the terrace. 
If the light then available, though meagre, was enough for the assailants 
why should it be assumed that same light was not enough for the injured 
H who would certainly have pointedly focussed their eyes on the faces of the 
NATHUNI YADAV v. STATE 
')()7 
intruders standing in front of them. What is sauce for the goose is sauce A 
for the gender. [910-E-H] 
1.2. The evidence of the neighbours is to the effect that when they 
h

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