Criminal Law Case: Government of Nepal v. Sanjeev Kumar Singh Yadav and 8 others, NKP 2064, No. 10, DN: 7888
Case: Murder
Plaintiff: Government of Nepal on behalf of Chandra Prasad Ghale
Defendant: Sanjeev Kumar Yadav and 8 others
Decision Number: 7888
This case is related with prove beyond reasonable doubt and self defense.
Fact of the case:
The accused, Baleshwor (Dharma Dev Yadav), is the uncle of the deceased, Ashok Kumar Yadav, while Rajesh is the son of Baleshwor.
On 2043/12/23, Baleshwor (Dharma Dev Yadav) shot and killed Ashok Kumar Yadav with a rifle. According to a police report filed by Constable Chandra Kumar Ghale on 2043/12/24, a servant of Dharma Dev Yadav had fired gunshots at villagers, injuring several of them.
An FIR was later lodged by Ramsakhi Devi, the mother of the deceased, accusing Dharma Dev Yadav and Rajesh of murder through the use of firearms.
The police inquest report (Laash Jaanch Muchulka) documented the injuries on the deceased’s body, while the recovery report (Baramadi Muchulka) recorded the seizure of a rifle, pistol, cartridges, and other evidence from the location identified by Dharma Dev Yadav.
Court decisions:
On the basis of the postmortem report and statements given by some eyewitnesses, Sarjamin Muchulka, Baramadi Muchulka, and the confession of Dharma Dev Yadav, the Trial Court (Saptari) convicted Dharmadev Yadav for committing the deliberate murder of Ashok Kumar Yadav as per sec. 13(1) and sentenced him as per sec. 13(3). Other accused, including Sanjeev Singh (who stated to have heard the rifle shot from the kitchen and later saw his father, Dharma Dev, standing on the balcony holding a rifle in his hand), were acquitted for lack of evidence.
Accused Ram Dev was acquitted of the charge of attempted murder (sec. 15), and Shyam Prasad Sharma was acquitted of the charge of sec. 25. The case was relegated to suspension (multabi) in the case of the accused, Bablu (Rajesh Kumar Singh Yadav), as per sec 190 of the chapter on court procedure. Rajesh was acquitted on insufficient evidence.
Appeal a court decision:
Dharma Dev Yadav pleads for self-defense in district court. He has confessed to the firing against Ashok Kumar for the purpose of self-defense, but he has not mentioned the circumstances. He again appealed to the appellate court of Rajbiraj. The appeal court upheld the verdict given by the district court except in the case of Rajesh Kumar, who also convicted ap per sec 13(1) and sentenced as per sec 13(3). Rajesh is also punished by the appeal court.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
An appeal was filed by Dharma Dev Yadav against his conviction and by the Government of Nepal against the acquittals, in the Supreme Court on the following grounds: both Rajesh and Dharma Dev were held guilty by the apex court:
- The postmortem report confirmed about two gunshots and fatal injuries at two places of the dead body, resulting in death.
- The eyewitness, including the complainant, testified before the court that the first gunshot was fired by Rajesh, followed by the rifle shot fired by Dharma Dev Yadav.
- The plea of self-defense did not apply because the defendant could not prove the circumstances.
- Both were sentenced as per section 13(3), life imprisonment along with confiscation of property. The decision made by the appeal court of Rajbiraj is appropriate.
- The other 6 accused, including Sanjeev Kumar, were acquitted of charges under sec. sec17(3), 13(3) due to insufficient evidence.
Principle Established: No one should be held guilty unless the charge against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Those who plead self-defense must prove it. It stated that use of force shall be the last resort in any murder case in order to get exemption under the principle of self-defense.
