Supreme Court of India
Hare Ram Yadav vs State Of Bihar on 3 December, 2024
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: B.R. Gavai
2024 INSC 936 NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4952 OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14289 of 2024)
HARE RAM YADAV …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR …RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order
dated 20th August 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 237 of 2019 vide which the appeal filed by the appellant
has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated 30 th
January 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Saran convicting the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentencing him to suffer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2024.12.06
11:48:56 IST
Reason:
1
imprisonment for life, has been affirmed.
3. Shorn of details, the facts giving rise to the appeal are
as under :
3.1 First Information Report (for short ‘the FIR’) came to be
lodged by PW-5-Ranglal Yadav, who is the husband of the
deceased, stating that on 9th November 2015 at around 10.00
a.m., the present appellant who was the tenant of PW-5-
Ranglal Yadav came at his door, since he was annoyed with
the removal of the bricks from the door. He further informed
that the appellant started hurling abuses at the deceased and
when she objected, he assaulted the wife of PW-5-Ranglal
Yadav by means of a knife on her chest causing grievous
injuries and fled from there. It is further stated in the FIR
that the deceased was brought to a Doctor at Mohammadpur
from where she was taken to Manjhi Hospital and during the
course of treatment she died.
3.2 On the basis of the oral report, FIR No. 221 of 2015
came to be registered at P.S. Manjhi on 9 th November 2015
against the appellant. Upon completion of investigation, a
charge sheet came to be filed before the learned ACJM,
2
Chapra. Since the case was exclusively triable by the
Sessions Court, the same came to be committed to the Court
of Sessions. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis
of the evidence came to a finding that the appellant was
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC
and, therefore, convicted him of the same and sentenced him
to suffer imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved thereby, the
appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court which
was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Smarhar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Azmat Hayat
Amanullah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State.
5. Mr. Smarhar Singh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant submits that all the witnesses are
interested witnesses, being the relatives of the deceased. He
further submits that apart from the oral testimony of the
witnesses, there is no other evidence to implicate the present
appellant. He submits that even the alleged knife which is
stated to be used in the crime has not been recovered.
3
6. Shri Singh, in the alternative, submits that in any case,
the case would not fall under Section 302 of the IPC. He
submits that there was no premeditation. According to the
learned counsel, from the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses itself, it would be clear that the incident happened
at the spur of a moment in a sudden fight due to the
provocation by the deceased. He therefore, submits that the
case would fall either under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of
the IPC.
7. Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the appeal. He
submits that there are testimonies of five eyewitnesses which
consistently implicate the present appellant. In any case, he
submits that the injury was on the chest which is a vital
body part and therefore, the learned trial Judge as well as
the learned High Court have rightly convicted the appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. He
therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. From the evidence of Dr. Chandeshwar Singh (PW-6)
and the Post-Mortem report, we do not find that any
4
interference is warranted with the finding of the learned trial
Judge that the death of the deceased is homicidal.
9. From the evidence of Lilawati Devi (PW-1), Dhannu
Kumar Yadav (PW-2), Dhananjay Kumar Yadav (PW-3), Bidya
Sagar Yadav (PW-4) and Ranglal Yadav (PW-5), the first
informant, we find that the prosecution has proved that it is
the present appellant, who is responsible for the death of the
deceased.
10. Though, learned counsel for the appellant has
strenuously argued that all the five witnesses are relatives of
the deceased and therefore, their testimonies should be
discarded, we are unable to accept the said contention.
Merely because the witnesses are relatives, cannot be a
ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses. The only
requirement is that the testimonies of such witnesses have to
be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.
11. Perusal of all the five witnesses would reveal that
though they have been thoroughly cross-examined, their
evidence in examination in-chief has remained unshaken. In
that view of the matter, we find that the learned trial Judge
5
as well as the learned High Court have rightly held that it is
the appellant who has caused the death of the deceased.
12. Having said so, the next question that will be required
to be considered is as to whether the conviction under
Section 302 of the IPC needs to be maintained or altered to a
lesser offence.
13. From the evidence of the first informant, which is on
similar lines to the other witnesses, it would reveal that
someone had taken out a brick from the pile of bricks. Those
pile of bricks belonged to the appellant. Angered by this, the
appellant started abusing the wife of Ranglal Yadav (PW-5).
The wife of PW-5 objected and warned the appellant not to
abuse her. It is further seen from the evidence of Bidya Sagar
Yadav (PW-4) that the deceased told the appellant that if he
has courage, he may dare to kill her. Thereafter, the appellant
assaulted the deceased with the knife.
14. A perusal of the evidence would therefore, reveal that
there was no premeditation. The incident occurred on
account of a quarrel that erupted between the deceased and
the appellant on a trivial issue. The appellant appears to
6
have lost his control and assaulted the deceased with the
knife.
15. We find that the incident has occurred on account of a
grave and sudden fight in the heat of anger due to the
provocation by the deceased. A perusal of the evidence would
also reveal that it is a case of a single injury. There is no
evidence to show that the appellant has acted in a cruel
manner or has taken undue advantage of the situation.
16. In that view of the matter, we find that the appellant
would be entitled to have the benefit of exception under
Section 300 of the IPC.
17. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The conviction of the appellant is converted from
Section 302 of the IPC to Part-I of Section 304 of
the IPC.
(iii) The appellant has already suffered incarceration of
about nine years and ten months with remission.
We therefore, find that the sentence already
undergone by him would subserve the ends of
justice. The appellant is therefore, sentenced to the
period already undergone.
7
(iv) The appellant is, therefore, directed to be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case. If the
fine as imposed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge is not paid by him, the same shall be paid
within a period of two weeks from today.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
…………………………J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER O3, 2024.
8