Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Shyam Kishore Sharma and Gopal Prasad JJ.
Ram Haridya Mukhiya @ Bikau Mukhia Son Of Late Tilai Mukhiya
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2003
Decided On : April 26, 2011
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302 - [MURDER] - [Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code] - The court discussed the nature of evidence, contradictions in witness testimonies, and the lack of conclusive proof linking the accused to the crime. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, but the court found that the prosecution failed to establish a clear connection between the accused and the crime, leading to the acquittal of the Appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Mahendra Mukhiya, for which the Appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution presented evidence from witnesses and the autopsy report to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented had contradictions and lacked conclusive proof linking the accused to the crime. As a result, the court acquitted the Appellant.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the charge beyond a shadow of all reasonable doubts in criminal cases. It highlighted the need for clear and connected circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside. The Appellant was acquitted of the charge and directed to be released from custody.
Shyam Kishore Sharma and Gopal Prasad JJ.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 361 of 2001 whereby the Appellant who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. P.W.2 Dinesh Mukhiya gave his fardbeyan on 30th April, 2001 is his village before the Officer-in-charge of Kamtaul Police Station stating that in the preceding night at 9.00 P.M. his father Mahendra Mukhiya after taking meal went to have sleep at his newly constructed house. When informant went to attend the call of nature at 6.00 A.M. in the morning then he heard the voice of Mohit Ram who was raising that someone has killed his father. Upon this information, P.W.2 (informant) along with villager Lalan Thakur went to the field and found his father lying dead having injuries over his face and hand. He also reported that one Mostt. Sanjhariya Devi was married with one Narayan Mishra. Narayan Mishra before his death had executed all his landed property in favour of his wife Sanjhariya Devi. After death of Narayan Mishra, his heirs started troubling Sanjhariya Devi and she had to struggle for even two square of meal. Then Most. Sanjhariya adopted the informants father Mahendra Mukhiya as her son with the aim that later will take care of her. She executed a deed of Basgit for two kathas in favour of Mahendra Mukhiya upon which a hut was constructed prior to the occurrence. After execution of deed, heirs of Narayan Mishra namely, Suraj Mishra, Chunnu Mishra, Munnu Mishra and Vijay Mishra, started threatening the informants father that they would not allow the land to raze into pieces even then the hut was constructed though heirs of Narayan Mishra have hurled various threates to Mahendra Mukhiya. In the night the occurrence occurred, so the informant suspected that his father was killed by Suraj Mishra, Chuunu Mishra, Munnu Mishra and Vijay Mishra. The fardbeyan resulted into Jalley P.S. Case No. 38 of 2001 dated 30th April, 2001 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was investigated into and after completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted against the Appellant only and the persons named in the fardbeyan were not sent up for trial. The court took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of sessions where charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed and explained to the sole accused.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses. They are : P.W.1 Mohit Ram, P.W.2 informant Dinesh Mukhiya, P.W.3 Ram Snehi Mukhiya, P.W.4 Raj Kumari Devi, P.W.5 Raj Kishore Mishra, P.W.6 Ram Yad Mahto, P.W.7 Mohan Mishra, P.W.8 Sarsatiya Devi, P.W.9 Kanhaiya Singh, P.W.10 Dr.P.K.Das and P.W.11 Bijay Kumar Singh, the Investigating Officer.
4. Fardbeyan and formal F.I.R. have been marked as Ext. 2 and 4 respectively. Endorsement on the fardbeyan has been marked as Ext.3. The seizure list has been marked as Ext.1. Inquest report is Ext.5. Sketch map has been marked as Ext.6 and post mortem report is Ext.8.
5. On behalf of the defence, Ranjeet Kumar Mandal has been examined as D.W.1 and he has proved the initial signatures of Randhir Kumar Advocate on protest petition and have been marked as Ext.A to A/2 and full signature of Said Randhir Kumar Verma on the protest petition has been marked as Ext.B.
6. The trial court after considering the evidences brought on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove that the charge has been established beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts, so the order of conviction was passed.
7. This Court is required to see as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the sole Appellant beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt.
AI
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
