In a significant judgment, the Patna High Court upheld the life sentence of Hare Ram Yadav for the murder of his relative, Hewanti Devi. The Court ruled that a delay in forwarding the First Information Report (FIR) to the Magistrate is not by itself sufficient to dismiss the prosecution’s case if the evidence substantively supports the charges.
The Division Bench of Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Jitendra Kumar highlighted that procedural lapses, while undesirable, must not eclipse material evidence proving guilt.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from a family dispute that escalated into violence on November 9, 2015. The accused, Hare Ram Yadav, was convicted of fatally stabbing his relative, Hewanti Devi, during an argument about the removal of a pile of bricks outside his house. The motive was linked to a longstanding land dispute within the family.
The incident occurred in Gora village, Saran district. According to the prosecution, Yadav attacked the victim in a fit of rage, stabbing her in the chest. The victim succumbed to her injuries at the Manjhi Primary Health Center. An FIR was lodged by the victim’s husband, Ranglal Yadav, the same day, but it reached the Magistrate ten days later.
Yadav, who had a prior conviction for another family member’s murder, was sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court in January 2019. He appealed the decision, challenging the conviction on several legal grounds.
Legal Issues
1. Delay in Dispatching the FIR:
The FIR, though registered on the day of the incident, was only forwarded to the Magistrate after ten days. The defense argued that this delay was indicative of a fabricated case, undermining its authenticity.
2. Credibility of Familial Witnesses:
All witnesses presented were close relatives of the deceased, raising questions about bias and motivation to falsely implicate the accused due to pre-existing enmity.
3. Shoddy Investigation:
The defense highlighted multiple lapses, including the lack of independent witnesses, the absence of bloodstains at the crime scene, and the failure to recover the murder weapon.
4. Reliability of Evidence:
The defense contested the medical evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimony, arguing that these factors should have created reasonable doubt.
Observations of the Court
The Patna High Court meticulously analyzed each legal issue raised in the appeal:
– Delay in FIR Dispatch:
The Court acknowledged the ten-day delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate but held that this procedural lapse alone was insufficient to invalidate the prosecution’s case. It emphasized:
“Regardless of the delay in dispatch of the FIR, the suggested concatenation of events fits in the entire projection of the prosecution version.”
– Credibility of Witnesses:
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court stated:
“Enmity is a double-edged sword—it can be a motive for the crime as well as a reason for false implication. Each case must be examined on its merits. Testimony from related witnesses, if found credible, cannot be discarded merely on account of their relationship with the victim.”
– Shoddy Investigation:
While the Court criticized the investigating officer for failing to gather independent evidence or recover the murder weapon, it noted that investigative lapses alone do not vitiate the prosecution’s case:
“A faulty investigation or negligence committed by the I.O. cannot render the prosecution case totally unreliable. The evidence, evaluated with circumspection, supports the Trial Court’s findings.”
– Medical Evidence:
Post-mortem findings corroborated the prosecution’s claim that the victim died from stab injuries inflicted with a sharp weapon. The Court found the medical evidence consistent with the witness testimonies.
Decision
The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming the conviction and life sentence of the accused. It concluded that despite procedural irregularities and investigative shortcomings, the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt:
“The Trial Court is absolutely justified in holding the appellant guilty of the charge and sentencing him. Procedural lapses do not diminish the strength of the substantive evidence.”
The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the trial court’s verdict and sentence.
