ANJANI CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF BIHAR

              [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 227


                   ANJANI CHAUDHARY                            A
                             v.
                     STATE OF BIHAR
          (Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2004 etc.)
                   OCTOBER 26, 2010
                                                               B
     [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI
                 KR. PRASAD, JJ.]

     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.

       A-1 and A-3 filed the instant appeals contending that
8
  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.
                                                                  D
       S.C. Patel, Jai Prakash Narayan Gupta, Pankaj Kr. Singh
 for the Appellant.

     Chandan Kumar (for Gopal Singh) for the Respondent.
                                                                  E
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

      These appeals by way of special leave arise out of the
 following facts :                                                F

      1. On 6th February, 1989 at about 2:45 p.m., the first
 informant Ram Pukar Chaudhary (PW-'1.), had gone to ease
 himself when he heard some sounds c6ming from outside his
 house. On returning, he saw his nephews Anjani Chaudhary
 armed with a pistol and a lathi, Bhimsen Chaudhary armed with    G
 a farsa and KinKin Chaudhary armed with a bhala assaulting
 his brother Prem K4mar Chaudhary, killing him on the spot. PW-
 2 raised an alarm; whereafter Satyadeo Chaudhary (PW-1 ),
 Madan Chaudhary (PW-5) and Ahsarfi Chaudhary (PW-4) also
                                                                  H
    230      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R


A reached the site and saw part of the alleged occurrence. The
  motive for the murder was that the family property had been
  partitioned amongst the four brothers and their mother, and the
  mother had started living with the deceased Prem Kumar
  Chaudhary and had also executed a gift-deed in respect of her
B land in favour of PW-2's wife on which PW-2's brothers Mukti
  Chaudhary and Ram Pukar Chaudhary as well as the appellants
  had raised a dispute. On receiving information about the
  incident, a police party reached the village and recorded the
  statement of PW-2 and on that basis and after due investigation
c a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants under
  Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded
  not guilty and were brought to trial.

            2. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined inter
    alia:
D
       PW-3 Ramadhaar Chaudhary who proved the F.l.R
  (Exhibit-2), CW-2 Sikan Shahani proved the gift deed dated
  15th December, 1987 executed between Suhagwati in favour
  of Dharamsheela Devi and several other formal witnesses who
E proved the animosity and prolonged litigation between the
  warring brothers. PW-4- Ahsarfi Chaudhary and PW-5 Madan
  Chaudhary who had been named as eye-witnesses, however,
  turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The
  prosecution, accordingly, fell back on the eye-witnesses; PW-
F 1 Satyadeo Chaudhary, PW-2 Ram Pukar Prakash Chaudhary,
  PW-13-Ram Padarath Chaudhary and PW-14 Tarawati Devi,
  the wife of deceased.

        3. The-Trial Court held that the evidence of PW-14 could
  not be believed as her presence had not been noted in the FIR.
G The court then went into the eye-witness account of Satyadeo
  Chaudhary PW-1 and observed that though he belonged to a
  village at a distance of about eight miles from the place of
  incident, his presence was proved on record as the wife of the
  deceased was his sister and on the day in question he had
H
     ANJANI CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR                       231
            [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
been present to participate in a religious ceremony in her           A
house. The court also found that as the statement of this
witness had been recorded by the police at about 5:00 p.m.
that is within half an hour of the recording of the F.l.R, his
presence was proved on record for this additional reason.
Likewise, the Trial court examined the evidence of PW-2 Ram          B
Pukar Chaudhary, the brother of deceased, who deposed that
as his mother had gifted her share of the land in favour of his
wife, the other members of the family were annoyed on that
account. He further stated that Bhimsen Chaudhary had been
armed with a farsa, Kinkin Chaudhary with a Bhala and Anjani         c
Chaudhary with a lathi and they had inflicted injuries to the
deceased with their weapons. The court also found that the
ocular evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence as
there were thirteen (13) injuries on the deceased, out of which
twelve (12) injuries were incised and injury No.5 was a
                                                                     0
penetrating wound which could have been caused by a Bhala.
It was, however, noted that there was no injury with a lathi on
the deceased. The court further observed that there was
absolutely no delay in the lodging of the FIR. The Trial Court
accordingly convicted all the accused under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and awarded a sentence of rigorous                 E
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.15,000/- with a default
sentence as well. _

   · 4. An appeal was, thereafter, taken to the High Court which
has, by ttie impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal.                F

      5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the
appellants has raised several arguments before us. It has been
submitted that in the light of the fact that PW's 4 and 5, who
were alleged to be the eye-witnesses to the incident, had not        G
supported the prosecution and that the High Court had found
that the PW-14 was not an eye-witness as claimed by her,
whereas PW-1 was a chance witness who belonged to a
village situated at a dista.nce of about 8 miles from the place
of the incident, the entire prosecution story rested upon PW-
                                                                     H
    232    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A 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 has also been submitted. that the
  medical evidence did not support the presence of Anjani
  Chaudhary who is said to have been armed with a lathi and no
B injury with a lathi had been found on the deceased.

      6. The learned counsel for the State of Bihar has, however,
  supported the judgment of the High Court and Trial Court. He
  has pointed out that in the light of the fact that the Trial Court
C and the High Court had given concurrent findings on the
  evidence, no interference was called for in this matter.

          7. We have considered the arguments advanced by the
    learned counsel for the parties. This is a case of parricide. l{is
    clear that the incident was sparked off by a dispute between
D   brothers and their family members pertaining to the land which
    had been gifted by Suhagwati, mother of PW-2 to his wife
    Dharamsheela Devi which was resisted by the accused as they
    too. had laid claim tq the said land. This is apparo/1t from....tt:ie
    depositions of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 has als~given very        a
E   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 both the parties, had turned hostile is not surprising. We must
    however keep in sight that in a matter which involves close
    relatives belonging to farming families with deep set
F   animosities some evidence beyond the ocular evidence should
    also be looked for. In this case the medical evidence
    corroborates the presence of13himsen Chaudhary and Kinkin
    Chaudhary as they were armed with a farsa and a bhala which
    could have caused the incised and penetrating wounds found
G   on the dead body. The medical evidence, however, does not
    support the presence of Anjani Chaudhary as there was no injury
    with a pistol or a lathi on the body of the deceased.

        8. It is also apparent from the record that Bhim Sen
    Chaudhary has not filed an appeal in this court. Criminal Appeal
H
      ANJANI CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF BIHAR                  233
             [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

No. 140 of 2004 has been filed by Anjani Chaudhari and           A
Criminal Appeal No.1739 of 2010 (arising out of special leave
to appeal (Crl.) No.5187 of 2003) by Kinkin Chaudhary and
both are being disposed of by this judgment.

     9. In view of what has been stated above, we dismiss the    B
appeal of Kinkin Chaudhary but allow Criminal Appeal No.140
of 2004 filed by Anjani Chaudhary and order his acquittal. He
shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

B.B.B .                                Appeals disposed of.




          .··'.',..·