Facts
On December 4, 2008, Sunil Yadav (PW-5) and his brother Ram Sharan Yadav (deceased) were intercepted near a grocery store by the appellants and others. Adalat Yadav (A-1) fired a pistol hitting the deceased in the head, causing instant death, while Anirudh Yadav (A-2) also fired at the deceased.
Source reference: p. 3The motive was identified as revenge for the deceased's deposition in a separate murder case.
Source reference: p. 3PW-5 was also injured in the leg during the occurrence.
Source reference: p. 3The Trial Court convicted four persons under Sections 302/149/120B and 307/149/120B of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Source reference: p. 2On appeal, the High Court disbelieved four eyewitnesses (PW-1 to PW-4) but upheld the convictions of the appellants based solely on the testimony of the injured complainant, PW-5.
Source reference: p. 4-6Issues
1. Whether a conviction can be sustained based on the sole testimony of a single eyewitness/injured witness if other eyewitnesses are deemed unreliable.
Source reference: p. 9 / para. 72. Whether a delay in lodging the FIR and alleged contradictions between ocular and medical evidence are sufficient to discard the prosecution's case.
Source reference: p. 7-8 / para. 63. Whether the non-examination of independent local witnesses (villagers) proves fatal to the conviction.
Source reference: p. 17 / para. 12Law Applied
The Court applied Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which stipulates that no particular number of witnesses is required for proof of any fact.
Source reference: p. 10It relied on Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras and Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand, establishing that courts can convict on the testimony of a single "wholly reliable" or "sterling quality" witness.
Source reference: p. 10-11Regarding FIR delay, it applied principles from Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra and Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, holding that delay is not fatal if satisfactorily explained.
Source reference: p. 14-15It further applied the principle that ocular testimony of an injured witness generally prevails over medical opinion (Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra).
Source reference: p. 16-17Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in relying on PW-5, even after discounting PW-1 to PW-4, because PW-5 was an injured witness whose presence at the scene was indisputable.
Source reference: p. 9, 17The Court defined PW-5 as a "sterling witness" whose version was consistent and unassailable.
Source reference: p. 11-12Regarding the alleged medical conflict (entry/exit wound locations), the Court found that both PW-5 and the doctor (PW-7) agreed the deceased was shot in the head; any minor technical discrepancy was secondary to the ocular evidence of an injured witness.
Source reference: p. 16-17The delay in the FIR (incident at 5-6 PM, FIR at 10:30 PM) was deemed non-fatal given the context of the crime.
Source reference: p. 13-16The Court dismissed the objection regarding a lack of independent witnesses, noting that in cases involving violent reprisals against witnesses, the hesitation of local villagers to testify is a "societal reality" that does not compromise the prosecution's case.
Source reference: p. 17Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the testimony of a single injured witness of sterling quality is sufficient for conviction.
The Supreme Court upheld the life imprisonment of Adalat Yadav and Anirudh Yadav under Section 302/120B/149 IPC, and the sentence under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act. The appeals were dismissed.
Source reference: p. 2, 18Original Court PDF
Adalat Yadav Etc.vsThe State Of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in