Back
2004 Supreme(Pat) 132
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ram Nandan Prasad and Chandra Mohan Prasad JJ.
Sikandar Mandal
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2000 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 3, 2004
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt, especially in cases involving serious charges such as murder.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the medical evidence, witness testimonies, and the lack of evidence to prove the prosecution's case beyond a shadow of doubt. The court highlighted the infirmities in the evidence and the lack of proper identification of the assailant, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on the prosecution's story of the appellant assaulting the deceased with a knife. However, the court found infirmities in the evidence and lack of proper identification of the assailant, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, the lack of proper identification of the assailant, and the infirmities in the prosecution's evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of proper identification of the assailant, infirmities in the prosecution's evidence, and the failure to prove the case beyond a shadow of doubt.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of the charge of murder, and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant were set aside.
RAM NANDAN PRASAD and CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD JJ.
1. This appeal arises out of Sessions Trial No. 596 of 1995, Tr. No. 39 of 1999 of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, who, vide his judgment dated 10th/20th April, 2000, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. The appellant is the son of informant Amola Devi (PW 3) and deceased Aghori Mandal was appellants father. The prosecution story, as set forth in the fardbeyan, which was recorded by S.I. Govindjee Singh on 17th October, 1999 at 7.30 a.m. at the house of the informant is that her son Sikandar Mandal (Appellant) and Biro Mandal (PW 4) were living separate and her (informants) younger son Subodh Mandal (PW 1) was living with her. In the preceding night, after taking meal, she (the informant) was sleeping in"a room of her house and her husband (the deceased) was sleeping in the adjacent room and her son Sufaodh Mandal (PW 4) was sleeping in another room. She further stated that in the night at about 11.00 Oclock hearing some sound, she woke up and went into the room of her husband (the deceased) and saw that her son Sikander Mandal (the appellant) was holding a knife and he was assaulting the deceased on his neck with the knife. Two other unknown persons were also there. Due to the assault, her husband (the deceased) was twitching. Seeing this, she raised hulla whereupon her sons, Subodh Mandal (PW 1), Biro Mandal (PW 4) and daughter-in-law Mala Devi (not examined) came there and they also saw the occurrence. She further stated that seeing her two sons, the appellant left his dagger there and started fleeing but with the help of her son and villagers, he was captured. The two other unknown culprits managed to flee away. About the motive for the occurrence, the informant stated that her younger son had purchased 2 Kathas of land and that her elder son i.e. the appellant was usually quarrelling with her husband (the deceased) and he had also threatened to kill him (the deceased). The informant put her LTI on the fardbeyan. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 171 of 1994 was registered and, after completion of investigation, the appellant was put on trial and convicted and sentenced, as above.
3. As many as 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in this case. PW 3, the informant and her son Subodh Mandal (PW 1) are the only eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW 4 Biro Mandal, PW 9 Shanker Mandal and PW 12 Daya Devi have turned hostile. PW 7 Dinesh Mandal PW 8 Prakash Mandal and PW 10 Mahendra Mandal have been tendered by the prosecution and these witnesses have said nothing in their evidence about the occurrence. PW 2 Gurudeo Mandal and PW 6 Rajendra Mandal are hearsay witnesses, who heard about the occurrence later on, on coming to the P.O. PW 11 Dr. H.I. Ansari is the doctor who held the P.M. Examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW 5 Dr. Gajendra Kumar Singh is another doctor who had examined some injuries on the person of the appellant. PW 13 is a formal witness who proved the writings on the fardbeyan marked Ext-5.He also proved the writings of the I.O. on the case diary which was marked Ext. 4. The I.O. of the case was examined by the prosecution.
4. Before discussing the ocular evidence, it is proper to discuss the medical evidence. PW 11 Dr. H.I. Ansari who held the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased deposed that on 17th October, 1994 at 1.30 p.m. he conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of the deceased Aghori Mandal and found the following ante mortem injuries on his person :
(i) Incised wound on front and right side of neck. Size 4" x 1-1/4 with the cut of skin, trachea, oesophagus, blood vessels and other soft tissues at the level of cricoid level. The margin of skin and muscle was found retrated, which was sharply cut.
(ii) Incised wound on the right side of neck size 1" x 3/4" x muscle deep.
(iii) Incised wound o
