1. Murder of a child following a dispute over milk price — Conviction under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 109, IPC. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 2157
1997(1) Supreme 201
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Punchhi and Faizan Uddin, JJ.
Mahendra Rai -Appellant
versus
Mithilesh Rai & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 326-327 of 1990
And
Criminal Appeal Nos. 328-329 of 1990
Decided on 13-12-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : H.L. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, Bharat Sangal, B.B. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Uday Singh, Sr. Advocate, (Yatish Mohan, Ms. Anu Mohla) Advocates for Ranjit Kumar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Preparation of inquest report contemplated u/s 174 Cr.P.C. does not require any where to mention the names of assailants.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 302 r/w 109-Accused-respondent 2 caught hold of deceased, a 12 year old child lying a sleep on cot, and accused respondent A1 inflicted heavy blow by Kakut on neck of deceased-Eye witnesses of incident-High Court reversed conviction to acquittal merely on ground of discrepancy in timings of preparation of inquest report and absence of names of assailants in the same-High Court committed patent error in appreciating the same-Evidence of eye-witnesses was assertive and categorical-Discrepancies pointed out by High Court were insignificant and minor-It was neither incumbent upon police officer to mention names of assailants in inquest report nor was it necessary for eye-witnesses to insist mention of names of assailants in it-High Court was at error to record finding of innocence of respondents-Judgement of conviction recorded by trial court was liable to be restored but with modification in sentence by commuting death sentence to life imprisonment. (Paras 7 to 11)
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants challenge High Court's acquittal based on mis-appreciation of eye-witness evidence and inquest report; respondents argue failure to establish the crime's genesis. (Para 6 )
3. Eye-witness testimony was consistent; the motive was plausible; the High Court erred regarding the requirements of an inquest report and the handling of contradictions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Inquest reports under Section 174(1) CrPC do not require the names of assailants; minor discrepancies in testimony do not invalidate ocular evidence. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Acquittals of respondents 1 and 2 set aside; respondent 1's death sentence commuted to life imprisonment; respondent 2's life sentence upheld; respondent 3's acquittal upheld. (Para 11 )
6. Does an inquest report under Section 174(1) CrPC need to mention the names of the assailants?
No. Section 174(1) CrPC requires the police officer to report the apparent cause of death and describe injuries and the weapon used, but it does not mandate the inclusion of the assailants' names. (Para 9 )
7. Can a minor dispute over a trivial matter serve as a plausible motive for murder?
Yes. The commission of an offence depends on the frame of mind of the offender, and individuals may take a serious view of seemingly trifling matters. (Para 8 )
8. How should contradictions between witness testimony and police statements under Section 161 CrPC be treated?
Minor discrepancies do not render evidence unreliable. Furthermore, contradictions based on case diary statements cannot be accepted unless the relevant portions of those statements are exhibited and placed on record. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT
Faizan Uddin, J.-These two sets of appeals one by the informant Mahendra Rai, cousin brother of the deceased and another by the State of Bihar are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna passed in Criminal Appeal No. 272 and 307 of 1988 reversing the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (I) Patna at Barh dated 20.5.1988 in Sessions Trial No. 135/1986 whereby the respondent No. 1 Mithilesh Rai was convicted under Section 302 for brutal murder of Arun Rai and sentenced to capital punishment, while the respondents 2 and 3, namely, Madan Rai and Raj Naresh Rai were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and other two co-accused, namely, Rajendra Rai an Ram Das Rai were acquitted.
2. The prosecution case was that in the morning of 17.5.1985 there was some dispute and altercation between the deceased Arun Rai, a boy aged about 12 years and the accused respondent No. 2 Madan Rai on the price of milk. The deceased Arun was insisting to sell the milk at the rate of Rs. 5/- per litre while the respondent Madan Rai was not agreeable for the same. This dispute infuriated the accused respondent No. 3 Raj Naresh Rai as well as the acquitted accused Ram Das Rai and Rajendra Rai who according to the prosecution instigated the accused respondent No. 1 and 2, Mithilesh Rai and Madan Rai to kill Arun Rai at any cost. It is alleged that on the same day at about 12 noon when deceased Arun Rai was sleeping on a cot under a mango tree in an orchard near his house, the accused respondent No. 1 armed with a Kakut, alongwith his cousin respondent No. 2 Madan Rai went there. Accused Madan Rai caught hold head of Arun and the respondent Mithilesh Rai gave a heavy blow by a Kakut (chaffcutter) on the neck of Arun Rai. The incident was seen by Mahendra Rai, PW 11, Jagdish Rai, PW 7, Jageshwar Rai, PW 8, Kalicharan Rai, PW 9 and other persons who also tried to apprehend the culprits but since they threatened them by saying that in case they proceeded further they would also meet the same fate. Thereafter the accused persons ran away towards their house. Victim Arun Rai died on the spot. According to the prosecution respondent No. 3 Raj Naresh Rai is said to have handed over the weapon of offence to the respondent No. 1, Mithilesh Rai sometime before the occurrence, while the two other acquitted accused are held to have instigated and abetted their sons, respondents 1 and 2 to commit the said murder sometimes in the morning on the date of occurrence.
3. At about 3.30 PM on the date of occurrence Kailash Prasad, PW 13, Officer Incharge of Police-Station Athmalgola received information about the commission of said murder, he, therefore, after making an entry in the Station Diary proceeded to village Dashinichak with a police party where he recorded Fardbeyan, Ext. 10 of Mahendra Rai, PW 11, the cousin of the deceased at about 5.30 PM on the basis of which a formal FIR Ext. 12 was drawn under section 302/34 IPC against the 3 respondents and the acquitted accused. He prepared an inquest report Ext.9 at the place of occurrence and seized bloodstained earth. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the hospital, Barh.
4. In the Barh Hospital, Dr. Shankar Prasad Deokuliar PW 6 performed an autopsy on the dead body of Arun Rai on 18.5.1985 who as per his post mortem report found a clean cut wound on the right side of the neck of the deceased extending from 1" left of midline beyond the lower angle of the mandible on the right side of the diamension 6" x 3", going deep up- to the vertebra. The doctor found an ellipsical clean cut wound of the size of 3/4" x 1/2" which was communicating to the aforesaid injury and was just to the left to that injury. He also found muscle, corpid vessels, trachea and desophaous severed. The doctor stated that both the said injuries were ante mortem in nature and in his opinion the death was caused due to bleeding as a result
