Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.304 of 2000 =========================================================== 1. Jago Yadav(wrongly typed in the ist page of judgment as nago Yadav) son of Hari Yadav , 2. Yogendra Yadav son ofg Bindeshwar Yadav 3. Ram Bachan Yadav son of Jago Yadav, all resident of village Bahuara, P.S. Manpur, Dist. Nalanda .... .... Appellant/s Versus State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur,Advocate Mr. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate Mr. Nilesh Kumar Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhimanayu Sharma, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 03-07-2012 The three appellants before this Court are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19th August 2000 in Sessions Trial No. 370 of 1990/70 of 1996 of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif who has convicted all the appellants to undergo R.I. for five years under [STATUTE] and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for six months. Appellants 2 and 3 were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under section 27 of the Arms Act. The sentences were to run concurrently. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.04.1995 at about 6.30 A.M. when Nirmala Kumari niece of informant Chotey Yadav aged 6 was going towards river side, the wife of Bindeshwar Yadav on seeing her, started abusing her alleging that she has uprooted the onion Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.304 of 2000 dt.03-07-2012 2 / 5 2 from the field of Yogendra Yadav. On this, Ravbindra Yadav protested and there was exchange of hot word between Rabindra Yadav and Yogendra Yadav. Yogendra Yadav assaulted Rabindra Yadav. Thereafter Rabindra Yadav fled away towards his house and he was followed by Yogendra Yadav, Ram Bachan Yadav , Jago Yadav, Surendra Yadav and Bindeshwar Yadav who were all carrying firearms. After hearing the noise, the informant came out of his house, it is said that Jago Yadav ordered Yogendra Yadav to kill him, thereupon Yogendra Yadav fired which hit Chotey Yadav on his chest. Ram Bachan Yadav also fired on Chote Yadav the informant which hit him in his stomach. The trial court after discussing the evidence had acquitted the other two accused persons, namely Surendra Yadav and Bindeshwar Yadav. Altogether eight witnesses were examined in this case. P.W.1,2,3 and 5 are closely related to the informant P.W.6. P.Ws 5 and 6 are brothers. All these witnesses during examination have supported the prosecution version and they had stated that they saw the appellants and others carrying firearms and chasing Rabindra Yadav who entered in his house and closed the door. All the witnesses in chief have categorically stated that they had heard the sound of firing which according to them was made in the air. They also claimed to have heard Jago Yadav ordering his son and nephew to shoot Chotey Yadav who came out of the house on hearing the sound of firing. During the cross-examination P.W.1, 2, 3 and 5 have not been able to establish that they were in position to see the actual occurrence i.e. the appellants 2 and 3 firing from their gun on Chotey Yadav because the topography of the place of occurrence shows that their houses were not Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.304 of 2000 dt.03-07-2012 3 / 5 3 directly facing adjacent to the house of the informant. During the cross- examination P.W.5 claimed that he met Rabindra Yadav while he was running away from the field who disclosed the reason as to why he was being chased by the miscreants, whereas P.W.6 the informant has not supported this aspect as he categorically stated that while he was running towards his house he did not meet any one from of the village either near field or in the lane of the village. This dispels the version of P.W.5. According to P.W.4 he had disclosed the reason for the firing on his brother the informant and asked him not to open the door. However, Chotey Yadav is said to have partly opened the door and received pellet injuries. There are other discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2, 3 and 5 regarding the firing. For example P.W.3 has stated in his cross- examination that Krishna Gope i.e. P.W.5 and Upendra Yadav P.W.2 were with him at the time when the firing was taking place, whereas P.W. 2 and 5 had not supported this part of the case. According to them they were at their house when the occurrence took place and they were able to witness the occurrence from their respective houses. The I.O. who has been examined in this case has supported the investigation carried out by him stating that he had visited the place of occurrence and found 25 pellet mark embedded in the door where Chotey Yadav was standing which is supporting the case that the appellants and others were aiming at the house of the informant. Mr. A.K. Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that so far as Jago Yadav is concerned, he is the father of appellant No.2 Yogendra Yadav , and has been falsely implicated in this case by giving in the role of an order giver. It is submitted that the firing was supposedly taking place even before Chote Yadav opened the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.304 of 2000 dt.03-07-2012 4 / 5 4 door and as such there was no occasion for any one to order the firing. I agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant so far as the submission regarding the allegation against Jago Yadav is concerned, he is acquitted of the charge under [STATUTE] . With respect to the other appellants counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has not been able to establish that P.Ws 1, 2, 3 and 5 were the eye witnesses to the actual firing. It is submitted that at most they could have come up with a ca

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.