REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2004

ANJANI CHAUDHARY  …..Appellant

Versus

STATE OF BIHAR …..Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1739 OF 2010 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5187 of 2003)

KIN KIN CHAUDHARY  …..Appellant

Versus

STATE OF BIHAR …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. These appeals by way of  special  leave arise  out of  the  

following facts :

1. On  6th February,  1989  at  about  2:45  p.m.,  the  first  

informant  Ram Pukar Chaudhary  (PW-2),  had gone to  ease  

himself when he heard some sounds coming from outside his  

house.  On returning, he saw his nephews Anjani Chaudhary  

armed with a pistol and a lathi, Bhimsen Chaudhary armed

C  rl. Appeal Nos.140/2004 & 1739/2010         

with  a  farsa  and  KinKin  Chaudhary  armed  with  a  bhala  

assaulting his brother Prem Kumar 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 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 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 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:

PW-3  Ramadhaar  Chaudhary  who  proved  the  F.I.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  

proved  the  animosity  and  prolonged  litigation  between  the  

2

C  rl. Appeal Nos.140/2004 & 1739/2010         

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-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.  

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  

been  present  to  participate  in  a  religious  ceremony  in  her  

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.I.R, his  

presence  was  proved  on  record  for  this  additional  reason.  

Likewise, the Trial court examined the evidence of PW-2 Ram  

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  

3

C  rl. Appeal Nos.140/2004 & 1739/2010         

Anjani 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  

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  

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 the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal.

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 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 distance of about 8 miles from the place of  

the incident, the entire prosecution story rested upon PW-2’s  

4

C  rl. Appeal Nos.140/2004 & 1739/2010         

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  

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  

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.  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 Suhagwati, mother of PW-2 to his  

wife Dharamsheela Devi which was 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 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  

5

C  rl. Appeal Nos.140/2004 & 1739/2010         

animosities some evidence beyond the ocular evidence should  

also  be  looked  for.   In  this  case  the  medical  evidence  

corroborates the presence of Bhimsen Chaudhary and Kinkin  

Chaudhary 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 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 No. 140 of 2004 has been filed by Anjani Chaudhari  

and 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  

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.  

….……………………..J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

……………………………..J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

OCTOBER 26, 2010

6

C  rl. Appeal Nos.140/2004 & 1739/2010         

NEW DELHI.

7