RAMASHRAY YADAY AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 08-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMASHRA Y Y ADAY AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
NOVEMBER 8, 2005 
[H.K. SEMA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 rlw Section 34-Arms Act, 1959-
Section 21-Murder-Due to gun-shot injuries-Sole witness-Deceased, a 
timber 
merchant-The 
three 
appellants-accused 
were 
local C 
bullies("goondas") who allegedly demanded "rangdari tax"(goonda tax) 
from deceased but he refused-Incident occurred when deceased alongwith 
his brother, PW12 was returning back on a tractor trolley after loading 
timber from the village-Solitary testimony of PWl 2-Conviction of appellants 
by Courts be/ow-Validity of-Held, valid-No infirmity· was found in the 
evidence of PW12-Jt was substantially corroborated by statements of two D 
independent witnesses, PW3, the driver of the tractor and PW5, who though 
did not see the incident, heard gunshots and saw deceased in a badly injured 
condition-Version of PW12 also consistent with medical evidence-
Participation of appellants in the crime established beyond reasonable 
·doubt-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 157. 
E 
Deceased was a timber merchant. According to the prosecution, he 
alongwith his brother PW 12 went to the village on a tractor trolley to bring 
timber. While they were returning after loading the timber, suddenly the three 
appellants-accused came out from the bushes and started firing with country-
made pistol and rifle. PW3, who was driving the tractor, and the deceased F 
jumped from the tractor and started running but the appellants chased the 
deceased and fired number of gun shots, which hit him l\nd he fell down dead. 
The appellants were local bullies/"goondas" who allegedly killed the deceased 
since he refused to pay the "goonda tax" demanded from him. As many as 7 
witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile. Only PW.12, supported G 
the prosecution case. PW3, who was driving the tractor did not mention the 
names of the appellants in his deposition in Court, hut excepting that he 
completely corroborated the prosecution version. PW.S had not seen the 
incident but he heard the sound of gunshots and rushed to the place of 
occurrence where he saw the deceased lying in a badly injured condition and 
75 
H 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A PW12 who was standing nearby narrated the incident to him. The Sessions 
Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC 
and Section 27 of the Arms Act. High Court in appeal upheld the conviction. 
Hence the present appeal. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. PW12 is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed that 
the deceased was carrying on timber business and had also a saw mill. The 
appellants were bullies or goondas of the locality and they used to demand 
"rangdari tax" (Goonda Tax) from his brother, but he refused to pay the same 
C and due to this reason, the appellants wanted to teach him a lesson. This shows 
the motive for commission of crime and also explains the reason why as many 
as 7 witnesses turned hostile and even PW3 who was driving the tractor, did 
not mention the names of the appellants in his deposition in Court, though 
they were named and were assigned the specific role of causing gunshot 
injuries in his statement under Section 161 CrPC. [79-G-H; 80-A) 
D 
1.2. Except for mentioning the names of the three appellants, PW3 has 
completely corroborated the prosecution version of the incident. He 
corroborates the fact that PW12 had also gone with the deceased to village 
Dabaul for bringing timber on a tractor of which he was the driver. He 
E corroborates the fact that the incident took place at about 3.00-4.00 p.m. near 
village Shekhopur when two-three persons suddenly appeared and started 
firing upon the tractor. He also corroborates the fact that he saw deceased 
being hit by gunshots and falling down dead towards eastern side of the tractor. 
He further corroborates the presence of PW12 at the time when the assailants 
resorted to firing upon deceased. [80-C, DJ 
F 
1.3. The testimony of PWS who had reached immediately after the 
Incident and to whom PW12 had narrated the incident and the role played by 
the three appellants In causing the death of his brother by firing upon him 
lends complete corroboration to the testimony of PW12. [82-CI 
G 
State of Tamil Nadu v. Suresh & Anr. [1998) 2 SCC 372 and Smt. 
Chander Kala v. Ram Kishan & Anr., AIR (1985) SC 1268, relied on; 
2. No Infirmity of any kind has been pointed out 

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