Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 1284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
I. A. ANSARI, GOPAL PRASAD, JJ.
Mohan Giri – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.554 of 1993
Decided on : 18-03-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Farooque Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Singh No. 3, Advocate, Mr. Thakur Brajesh Singh, Advocate, Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajay Mishra, Mr. Ravi Bhardway, Advocate as Amicus Curiae
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, emphasizing the standard of proof and the evaluation of evidence.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302, Section 201, Section 120B - The judgment discusses the evidence presented in a murder case where the accused was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzed the eyewitness testimonies, the First Information Report, and the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. The court ultimately acquitted the accused under the benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Mohan Giri, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Deojani Kuer. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimonies and a fardbeyan (First Information Report) alleging the involvement of the accused in the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the eyewitness testimonies, failed to meet the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. The court noted inconsistencies in the testimonies and the failure to mention the accused in the First Information Report, leading to the conclusion that the evidence fell short of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issue was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of meeting the standard of proof in a criminal trial and highlighted the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies and the failure to mention the accused in the First Information Report. These factors led the court to conclude that the evidence fell short of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the accused under the benefit of doubt. The accused-appellant's bail bond was cancelled, and the sureties were discharged. The Amicus Curiae was awarded a fee of Rs. 5,000.
I. A. ANSARI, J.
Under the judgment, dated 16.10.1993, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 52 of 1992, by learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah, the appellant, Mohan Giri, stand convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Following his conviction, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be set out as under:
(i) On 06.01.1992, at around 06.00 to 06.30 P.M., when Deojani Kuer was passing, in the company of Sharda Devi (since acquitted), from a place located about hundred yards in the east of village Sikta Kala, accused Mohan Giri came out of the bushes and though Deojani Kuer resisted pleading to Mohan Giri to leave her, accused Mohan Giri dragged her and chopped off her head by means of kata, i.e., sharp edged weapon. The occurrence was seen by Teni Sah (P.W. 1), Sachidanand Thakur (P.W. 3) and Parshuram Mahto (P.W. 4). When the accused was in the process of dragging the said deceased and before he assaulted said deceased, P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 moved forward in order to save the said deceased, but accused, Mohan Giri, abused them and threatened to kill them also. Being frightened and panicked, not only P.W. 1 and 3, but P.W. 4 also, who was present near the place of occurrence, ran away and came to their village.
(ii) On the following day, at about 10.45 A.M., P.W. 8, Achhaiber Nath Pathak, lodged a fardbeyan at Jogapatti Police Station, alleging to the effect, inter alia, that his son, Braj Bhushan Pathak (not examined), came and informed him (P.W. 8) that her maternal grandmother, Deojani Kuer, had been hacked to death and, on receiving this information, he (informant, P.W. 8) came to the village and saw the headless dead body of Deojani Kuer lying on the rural road at a distance of hundred yards south of the said village. The informant also mentioned, in the fardbeyan (Exhibit 6), that he started receiving information from his co-villagers that on previous day, i.e., on 06.01.1992, Deojani Kuer had gone to Bettiah, along with accused Sharda Devi (since acquitted), and while she was returning in the evening, she had been killed by chopping off her head and, leaving her dead body at the very place of occurrence, the assailant had disappeared.
(iii) The informant also alleged, in the fardbeyan that he was confident that his co-villager, Mohan Giri, had committed the murder, because Mohan Giri, with the help of his co-villager, Kewal Sah, had, in the year 1989, got one bigha of land, belonging to Deojani Kuer, registered in his name, by substituting, in place of the seller, accused Mohan Giri’s own wife and, on coming to know about the said fact, the said deceased was proposing to file a case against accused, Mohan Giri, alleging commission of fraud.
3. Treating the said fardbeyan, as the First Information Report, Jogapatti P.S. Case No. 03 of 1992 was registered, under Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, against accused Mohan Giri and Sharda Devi.
4. During investigation, police visited the place, where the said dead body was found and held inquest over Deojani Kuer’s dead body. The said dead body was also subjected to post mortem examination and, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid, under Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, against accused persons, namely, Mohan Giri, Prabhu Giri, Umesh Singh and Sharda Devi.
5. At the trial, when charges, under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, were framed against accused persons, namely, Mohan Giri, Prabhu Giri, Umesh Singh and Sharda Devi, all the accused pleaded not guilty thereto.
6. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 9 (nine) witnesses. The accused were, then, examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code and in their examinations aforementioned, the accused persons denied that they had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by them, the cas
