Case title:

Maheshwari Yadav & Anr v. The State of Bihar

Date of Order:

13th December, 2023.

Bench:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal

Parties:

Appellant: Maheshwari Yadav & Anr

 Respondent: The State of Bihar

SUBJECT:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’) dealt with an appeal involving criminal charges of offenses under sections 34, 302, and 325 of IPC against the appellants. The incident occurred in March of 1997 whereby the appellants were accused of murdering Gholti Yadav. The Court upon hearing the testimonies of the witnesses and assessing the facts, upheld the ruling of the lower courts and dismissed the appeal.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 302
• Section 325
• Section 34

OVERVIEW:

• An altercation broke out between appellant no. 1 and a few others on 10^th March 1997, near a railway line.
• As the situation escalated, others joined the appellant and engaged in a heated argument with Gholti Yadav, Jagdish Manjhi, and Narayan Manjhi.
• The brawl resulted in accused no. 3 fatally injuring Gholti Yadav, when accused no. 3 fired a shot from a musket striking the deceased in the back.
• The appellants then assaulted the others.
• The commotion alerted the villagers, who came to the scene, prompting the accused to escape.
• Jagdish Manjhi filed an FIR and 3 out of the 5 witnesses, including himself, were examined.
• The Trial Court convicted accused no. 3 under section 302 of IPC, others under section 302 read with section 325 of IPC.
• The appellants appealed against the order at the Patna High Court.
• The High Court dismissed the appeal on 7^th October 2007.
• The dismissal is now appealed against in the Supreme Court.  

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether the conviction of the appellants under section 304 read with section 34 of IPC is sustainable?
• Whether all witnesses must be examined for acquiring credible testimonies?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:

• No evidence has been presented which links appellant no. 1 to the fatality directly.
• Allegations of assault on the deceased were not against appellant no. 1.
• There was a lack of common intention shared between appellant no. 1 and accused no. 3 and without any evidence to prove the contrary, section 34 of IPC was not applicable.
• Accused no. 3 had an ongoing dispute with the deceased prior to the incident, which had nothing to do with appellant no. 1.
• The witnesses were not credible and could have been inserted witnesses as they were relatives of the deceased.
• 2 of the 5 witnesses had not been examined, which is questionable as PW1 was a potential eyewitness and his non-examination makes the entire case questionable.
• There was an unexplained delay of 8 hours which could affect the reliability of the information provided.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:

• There was evidence suggesting common intention among the accused, including appellant no. 1.
• Section 34 of IPC would apply to the case.
• Witnesses were eyewitnesses and their familial relations with the deceased did not make them any less credible.
•  Accused had motive to assault the deceased.
• The 2 witnesses who had not been examined, were not crucial to the case.
• An 8-hour delay in filing the FIR does not undermine the credibility of the case.
• The witness testimonies were consistent with one another, proving that the incidents were being accurately recalled.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The Supreme Court opined that negative inferences could not be drawn from the fact that 2 additional witnesses were not examined by the prosecution.
• Section 34 of IPC was applicable as the accused had common intentions shared. Even if that had not been the case, accused no. 3 would have still been convicted for murder
• The Court found the witness testimonies consistent and of ‘sterling quality.’
• The ongoing disputes between appellant no. 1 and the deceased, and accused no. 3 and the deceased were acknowledged by the Court, proving that they have motives for assault.
• The appeal was dismissed by the Apex Court, directing the appellants to surrender before the Trial Court within one month to serve the remainder of their sentences.
• The Supreme Court upheld the orders trial court and High Court.

CONCLUSION:

The convictions of the appellants under sections 302, 325, and 34 of IPC by the Trial Court were upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court found the appellants guilty of charges of murder and causing grievous hurt with common intention under the mentioned sections. The Court further laid directives for the State Government to assess their case as per the law when the appellants had undergone their required sentence and become eligible for consideration for permanent remission.