SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Pat) 1704

PATNA HIGH COURT
Mridula Mishra and Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam JJ.
Reference Made By Sri Md.Abdul Baqui
Versus
Dharmajay Prasad
Death Reference No. 5 of 2004
Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2004 286 of 2004 335 of 2004
Decided On : NOVEMBER 28, 2008

The judgment emphasizes the fundamental legal principle of proving charges beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. It underscores the importance of authentic and reliable evidence to establish guilt.

Headnote:

Death Reference - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 302/34, Section 27 of the Arms Act - The judgment discusses the prosecution case, evidence of witnesses, and the defense presented. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, including the manner of occurrence, the place of occurrence, and the motive. As a result, the death sentence and other convictions were set aside, and all appellants were acquitted.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the murder of two individuals, Pramod Chauhan and Ram Swarath Chauhan, at their residence. The prosecution alleged that the accused, led by Dharamjay Prasad Mukhiya, committed the murder due to a dispute over extortion money for laborers supplied to a brick kiln.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and the manner of occurrence, did not stand up to scrutiny. The court also noted discrepancies in the first information report and the place of occurrence, casting doubt on the authenticity of the case.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the authenticity of the prosecution's case, including the manner and place of occurrence, the motive, and the reliability of witness testimonies.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The discrepancies in the first information report, the place of occurrence, and the motive undermined the prosecution's case.

Final Decision: The death sentence and other convictions were set aside, and all appellants were acquitted of their respective charges. The court directed the release of the appellants from custody and discharge from bail bonds.

JUDGEMENT

S.M.M.Alam, J.

1. Death Reference No. 5 of 2004 (State of Bihar vs. Dharamjay Prasad) and three criminal appeals bearing Criminal Appeal No. 284 (D.B.) (Dharamjay Prasad alias Dharamjay Mahto) as well as Criminal No. 286 of 2004 (D.B.) (Karu Mahto vs. The State of Bihar) and Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2004 (D.B.)(Binda Mahto vs. The State of Bihar) arise out of one and the same judgment dated 2nd day of March, 2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 686 of 1995 by 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barh whereby and whereunder all the three appellants alongwith three other accused, who are absconders, were convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides that, appellants Karu Mahto and Binda Mahto were also convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. For the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C., appellant Dharamjay Prasad Mukhiya was sentenced to death and ordered to be hanged by neck till his death. The other two appellants, namely, Karu Mahto and Binda Mahto, were sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed with direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. For confirmation of death sentence awarded to appellant Dharamjay Prasad Mukhiya, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made reference to this Court whereas three appellants filed separate three criminal appeals and thus, the abovementioned death reference alongwith three criminal appeals are before us.

2. The prosecution case, as per Exhibit 5, the fardbeyan of informant Harif Nonia (P.W. 5) son of Keshav Nonia of Village-Shaidpur, P.S.-Barh, District-Patna recorded by S.I., Peyush Kant of Barh P.S. on 12.7.94 at 22 hours at Village- Saidpur, in brief, is that on the same day at about 4 P.M. while he alongwith his brother Ram Swarath Chauhan, his nephew Pramod Chauhan, Manish Nonia, his uncle Shiv Balak Chauhan along his father Keshav Nonia were sitting together at the outer portion of his house (Dalan), they saw co-villagers Bhonu Mahto armed with rifle and Karu Mahto armed with pistol; Bablu Mahto, Binda Mahto of Village- Sarkatti armed with rifle, Surjan Mahto, Lalmuni Chauhan alias Chunnu Chauhan of Village-Chakjalal, P.S.-Bhadaur armed with gun alongwith appellant Dharamjay Prasad Mukhiya coming to his Dalan. As soon as they reached at his Dalan, Dharamjay Prasad Mukhiya shouted and ordered Ram Swarath and Pramod (both deceased) to remain sitting otherwise they would be shot at. Being afraid, the informant alongwith Ram Swarath and Pramod and others tried to flee away whereupon appellant Dharamjay Prasad Mukhiya gave order to his associates to shoot both the deceased. On getting order from the appellant Dharamjay Prasad, all other accused persons entered into Dalan of the informant and accused Bablu Mahto opened fire from his rifle upon Pramod which caused injury on his chest. Thereafter accused Bhonu Mahto opened fire from his rifle causing injury to Pramod on his back just above his waist. After that, accused Surjan Mahto (absconding accused who did not face trial) opened fire from his gun at Ram Swarath which hit on his head who fell down and immediately thereafter accused Lalmuni Chauhan alias Chunnu Chauhan opened fire from his gun which punctured into the abdomen of Ram Swarath and appeflant Binda Mahto opened fire from his rifle causing injury to Ram Swarath on his back. On receiving firearm injuries, Pramod Chauhan and Ram Swarath both fell down and died on the spot. It is further stated that appellant Karu Mahto also opened fire from his pistol aiming at the informant but the informant escaped unhurt. It is stated that after the occurrence all the accused persons raising slogans ran towards Village- Sarkatti. The motive behind the murder was that deceased Ram Swarath and his son Pramod used to
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top