Back
1979 Supreme(Pat) 202
PATNA HIGH COURT
M.P.Varma and . JJ.
Etwari Mandal
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1973 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 3, 1979
In cases of doubtful identification and suppression of material facts by the prosecution, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - EYE-WITNESSES - CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS - DOUBTFUL IDENTIFICATION - BENEFIT OF DOUBT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of murder and other offenses arising from a dispute over the division of crops. The prosecution alleged that the appellants attacked the deceased and other members of the prosecution party with weapons, causing fatal injuries to the deceased. The defense claimed that they had a share in the crops and that the prosecution party had committed atrocities in harvesting and removing the crop, and that they had acted in self-defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were serious discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the identification of the appellants and their involvement in the crime. The court also found that the prosecution had suppressed material facts about injuries sustained by some of the accused, and that there was a mutual fight between the two groups over the possession of the crops.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses was reliable. 2. Whether the prosecution had suppressed material facts about injuries sustained by some of the accused. 3. Whether there was a mutual fight between the two groups over the possession of the crops.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the identification of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses was doubtful and unreliable, as they had made contradictory statements and had not been able to identify the appellants at a T.I. parade. The court also found that the prosecution had suppressed material facts about injuries sustained by some of the accused, which suggested that the true manner of the occurrence had not been brought before the court. The court further held that there was a mutual fight between the two groups over the possession of the crops, which supported the defense's claim of self-defense.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants, and ordered their release from custody.
M. P. Verma, J.
1. Appellant no.1 Etwari Mandal has been convicted for offences under sections 304, Part-It and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and six months respectively, appellant no.2 Banwari Gope has been convicted for offences under sections 323 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under both the counts appellant no.3 birhaspat Mandal son of Lochan Mandal has been convicted for offences under sections 324 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under each count, appellant no.4 Ghanshyam gope has been convicted for an offence under Sec.148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months and appellant no.5 Madan, mandal has been convicted under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months.
2. All the five appellants were put on trial along with 13 other accused in the court of Shri Md. Abdul Sattar, Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Sessions Case No.106 of 1969, and the learned Judge by his judgment dated 24th February, 1973, acquitted all the 13 accused but held these five appellants guilty of the offences as recorded above.
3. The occurrence took place on 13.11.1968 According to the prosecution, badri Singh (P. W.4) along with Jatal Singh (deceased,) Puran Singh (P. W.1), gully (P. W.7), Mangaru Gope (P. W.2.) Bandhu and Sanichar with many other labourers were carrying bundles of paddy crops on two bullock carts after harvesting the same from Gullus (P. W.7) khet in village Kumhargaria. When they crossed the river bed and reached on the western bank of it, the accused persons all of a sudden came over and asked why they were removing the crops and demanded partition of the same which was objected to and this was followed by an attack on the numbers of the prosecution party. Appellants nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have assaulted Jatal Singh (deceasad)with lathi and stones. Both the appellants nos.3 and 4 are said to have assaulted (P. W.1) Puran Singh with swords. Appellant no.5 is also said to have assaulted Puran Singh with a lathi. The version of the defence in short is that they had share in the paddy crop and atrocities were committed by the members of the prosecution party in harvesting and removing the crop and on protest, prosecution party attacked on them as aggressors.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the State and i find serious descripancies in the statement of the witnesses with regard to the identification of the appellants in the involvement of the aforesaid crime. According to the prosecution Jatal was received injuries and was immediately removed to hospital where medical aid was given to him. But the injuries proved fatal and he died in the hospital. P. W.3 is the Medical Officer, who had held post mortem over the dead body of Jatal Singh on 14.11.62 and had found the following antimortem injuries : -
(1) One sharp cut wound 3/4" vert. X 1/4" wide X deep inside the socket of the right eye, rapturing the right eyeball on the right side laterally. (2) One lacerated wound over the parietal bone of the skull in the central close to the middle 3" vertical x 1/4 X deep upto the bone which is fractured (right side ). (3) Bleeding from both nostril present. (4) One lacerated wound over ring finger laterally over the base 1/2" X 1/4". (5) One scratch over left leg anteriorly one inch below knee joint 1/2" X 1/4".
5. From the post-mortem report the. death, of Jatal Singh is definitely an act of homicide, but the question arises who gave the fatal blow and whether the appellants could be properly identified to enable the court to give a finding of guilt or the charges for which they were put on trial. There are 4 eye-witnesses of the incident. They are P. W. I Puran Singh, P. W.2 Mangru Gope, P. W.4
