Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Rajesh Prasad – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar and Anr. Etc. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.111-113 of 2015
Decided On : 07-01-2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the conviction of three accused, Upendra Ram, Mahendra Ram, and Munna Ram, for the murder of Chhote Lal Mahto and another person, O.P. Verma, by hurling bombs. The accused were convicted by the Fast-Track Court and sentenced to death (Munna Ram and Mahendra Ram) and life imprisonment (Upendra Ram). The High Court, on appeal, acquitted all the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court, on appeal by the State, upheld the High Court's judgment of acquittal. The Court found that the High Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and noted the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' statements. The Court also noted that the prosecution had failed to explain the exoneration of certain accused who were initially implicated in the case. The Court further observed that the trial court had erred in inverting the presumption of innocence and in not considering the defense's arguments.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the Fast-Track Court, thereby acquitting all the accused? 2. Whether the judgment of the High Court calls for any interference or modification by this Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the Fast-Track Court, thereby acquitting all the accused, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The judgment of the High Court does not call for any interference or modification by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside only the portion of the High Court's judgment directing the trial court to initiate perjury proceedings against the informant. The rest of the High Court's judgment and order of acquittal was affirmed.
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA J.
These appeals have been filed by the appellant informant (PW-7 Rajesh Prasad) assailing the judgment and order dated 5th August, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos.714, 747 and 814 of 2008 by which the judgment of conviction dated 26th June, 2008 and order of sentence dated 30th June, 2008 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Munger, has been set aside by allowing the aforesaid appeals and by accordingly answering the Death Reference No.13/2008 and consequently acquitting all the accused.
2. The Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Munger, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Fast Track Court’) vide its judgment dated 26thJune, 2008 convicted the respondents herein viz., Upendra Ram, Mahendra Ram and Munna Ram. By order dated 30th June, 2021, the Fast Track Court sentenced Upendra Ram to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine he was further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 302/34 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the ‘IPC’) and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under section 504 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each for the offence under section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and ordered that the sentences run concurrently. The Fast Track Court sentenced the accused viz., Munna Ram and Mahendra Ram to death under sections 302/34 read with section 120B of IPC and sections 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, subject to confirmation by the High Court. The Fast Track Court however acquitted the other accused viz., Fantus Mandal, Dhappu Ram and Chandrabhanu Prasad.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on Thursday, 10th March, 2005, at about 5.00 pm, accused Mahendra Ram, Upendra Ram, Munna Ram, Dhappu Ram, all being sons of Kishori Ram and Chandrabhanu Prasad, with two other unknown persons proceeded towards the informant viz., Rajesh Prasad (PW-7) and protested that as the informant had opposed their illegal activities, his entire family would be blown off by a bomb. Accused Munna Ram threw a bomb at the informant’s father Chhote Lal Mahto who was sitting in his betel (pan) shop. The rear portion of his father’s head was blown off leading to his death. Accused Mahendra Ram threw another bomb against O.P. Verma and as a result thereof, his head was blown away and he died on the spot. Further, Upendra Ram hurled another bomb which missed injuring anyone else and exploded on the road. Then accused Chandrabhanu and Dappu Ram stated that they would proceed from there as their job had been completed and they tried to flee from the spot, but the furious public caught hold of an unknown person and assaulted him as a result of which he was seriously injured and he died. The accused, while fleeing away, threatened that their action was a result of opposition by the informant against the illicit sale of liquor by them and if anyone again obstructed their business, they would face similar consequences. Accused-Chandrabhanu Prasad helped the accused-Munna Ram to flee from the spot.
4. The informant had further stated that he was objecting to the illegal sale of liquor by the accused and on account of enmity and in pursuance of their common intention and object, they had hurled bombs and killed the father of the informant as well as others.
5. On receipt of the said information, a case was registered at Kotawali PS being Case No.136/2005 dated 10thMarch, 2005 under sections 302/34, 120B of IPC and section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the accused. The police investigated the case and submitted the chargesheet dated 7thJune, 2005 against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, keeping investigation pending with regard to the oth
1. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. 2. The acquittal re-enforces and reaffirms the....
(1) Evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value.(2) Merely because witnesses were relatives of deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on the ground that they were plante....
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and consistent witness testimony, as well as the need for corroborative evidence to support the prosecution's case.
The prosecution must substantiate charges with consistent, reliable evidence; failure to do so results in acquittal.
(1) Appeal against acquittal – If appellate court comes to conclusion that findings recorded by trial court are erroneous and contrary to law, it is always open for appellate court, by recording good....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
