Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH AND ANJANA MISHRA, JJ.
Suresh Thakur - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No 365 of 1992
Decided on : 05.01.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh (Amicus Curiae)
For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – In inquest report there is no external injury which is totally incompatible with fardbeyan – In postmortem report also there is no mention of any external injury – Bed-head ticket clearly mentions snake bite – There is long standing animosity between parties – Informant has falsely implicated appellants – Occurrence as sought to be projected by prosecution not believable – Benefit of doubt must go to appellants – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 5 to 8)
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The case involves an appeal against the conviction of four appellants for the offense of murder under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (!) (!) .
-
The prosecution's case was primarily based on a Fardbayan by Tara Devi, which alleged that the accused persons assaulted the informant, her family members, and her deceased son, leading to his death (!) .
-
The investigation and medical evidence revealed significant inconsistencies with the prosecution's version:
- The inquest report indicated no external injuries on the deceased, which is incompatible with the alleged assault.
- The post mortem report also showed only a minor lacerated wound without any external injury indicative of physical assault.
-
The bed head ticket clearly mentioned snake bite as the cause of death, and medical witnesses confirmed that the deceased was admitted for snake bite treatment, not injuries from beating (!) (!) .
-
The defense successfully established long-standing animosity between the informant and one of the accused, and evidence suggested that the death was due to snake bite rather than assault (!) .
-
The prosecution's case appeared to be deliberately concealed or misrepresented, as the evidence pointed towards death by snake bite, and the alleged injuries from assault were not supported by medical reports (!) (!) .
-
The court observed that the absence of external injuries and the medical evidence indicating snake bite cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events, leading to the conclusion that the occurrence as narrated was not believable (!) .
-
Consequently, the court held that the benefit of doubt should go to the appellants and, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence, resulting in their acquittal (!) .
-
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence were reversed, freeing the appellants from their liabilities (!) .
These points encapsulate the core findings and reasoning of the court based on the evidence and medical reports, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.
The four appellants were found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and having been sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge I, Madhubani by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.1992 and 07.08.1992 respectively in Sessions Trial No 23 of 1984/31 of 1988 have filed this appeal. It may be noted that another person Bahru Thakur was also tried but he has been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and has been left with mere admonition. The appellants have been further directed to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/- each, on failure whereof, six months further rigorous imprisonment.
2. When the appeal was called out, no one appeared for the appellants to press the appeal. We, accordingly, requested Shri Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh to assist the Court amicus curiae. We have heard the learned amicus curiae and the learned APP Shri Ajay Mishra and perused the records.
3. The prosecution case is based upon a Fardbayan recorded by one Tara Devi (PW 6) which was recorded by Sub Inspector of Police Ram Lakhan Singh (PW 7) on 16.09.1983 at 5 pm at Village – Sighariya wherein, inter alia, it was alleged that at about 7 in the morning, informant’s husband had climbed a palm tree for breaking leaves for burning. The accused persons started abusing and beating. When the informant and her sons Mahendra Mahto and Ramchandra Mahto (deceased) tried to intervene, they were all beaten. First her husband was beaten by fists, slaps, bricks and then her young son Ramchandra Mahto (deceased) was also beaten by fists, slaps, kicks, bricks as a consequence whereof all of them were grievously injured. Upon this information, a formal first information report (FIR) was registered. It appears that Ramchandra Mahto, the son of the informant was then admitted to Government Hospital for treatment where on the next day that is 17.09.1983, in the morning, he died allegedly in course of treatment. The inquest was prepared and body was sent for post mortem and the case was then converted into one under Section 302 of IPC. After investigation, the five accused persons were charge-sheeted. They pleaded not guilty. They were charged and after trial, four have been convicted as noted above and the fifth Bahru Thakur has been left after due admonition.
4. Learned amicus curiae submits that it may not be necessary to go into all evidences in detail because as per the FIR, the informant, her daughter-in-law, her husband and her two sons including one deceased, they were all brutally beaten up by fists and slaps and brickbats by the accused persons but there is not a single injury report produced in support thereof. When we come to the deceased, the first thing is the inquest report. Though the deceased died in the Government Hospital, in the inquest report, there is mention that there is no external physical injury seen which is totally incompatible with the Fardbayan. When we come to the post mortem report, here again, except a lacerated wound without any indication of any dimension, there is no other external injury. Learned amicus curiae submits that this itself establishes that the whole story that has been set up is not true. On the other hand, the learned amicus curiae would submit that there has been a consistent suggestion given by the defence that in fact the young son of the informant had died because of snake bite and because of old enmity, the accused persons have been dragged in. For the said purpose, he drew our attention to the evidence of PW 5 Mahendra Mahto. PW 5 Mahendra Mahto admits having been interrogated by the police in course of investigation. He denies the suggestion that the deceased had died of snake bite. The Investigating Officer (IO) (PW 7) clearly states that in course of investigation, PW 5 Mahendra Mahto had clearly disclosed that the boy had died because of delayed treatment for snake bite
