Back
2016 Supreme(Pat) 1039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANJANA PRAKASH, RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Dinesh Prasad Mandal S/o Late Khokha Prasad Mandal - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.337 of 2010
Decided on : 12-05-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Md. Khurshid Alam, Advocate, Md. Naseem Mukhtar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Sinha, APP
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concrete and admissible evidence to establish guilt in a criminal case, particularly in relation to confessions and the recovery of incriminating items.
Headnote:
Extra Judicial Confession - Murder - Section 302 I.P.C. - Evidence of extra judicial confession and recovery of murder weapon not completely established
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life and fine under Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of his mother. The prosecution's case relied on extra judicial confession and the recovery of the murder weapon.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no direct evidence against the Appellant. The evidence of extra judicial confession before the police was deemed inadmissible, and the recovery of the murder weapon was not completely established.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility and credibility of the evidence of extra judicial confession and the recovery of the murder weapon.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of concrete evidence to establish the guilt of the Appellant, particularly regarding the extra judicial confession and the recovery of the murder weapon.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside. The Appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.
ANJANA PRAKASH, J.
Sole Appellant has been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for life and fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 302 I.P.C., in default of which rigorous imprisonment for another six months by judgment dated 27.1.2010/28.1.2010 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge IInd, Katihar in Sessions Trial No.139 of 2009/Trial No.121 of 2009.
2. The case of the prosecution, according to Informant Lalita Devi (P.W.8), is that the relationship between the Appellant and his wife was not good and they were constantly quarrelling, on account of which his wife used to stay in the maternal home. At one point in time the Appellant stated that his mother, the deceased, was the cause of the problems and he would finish her. On the night of occurrence the Appellant came and disclosed to her that he had killed his mother Sharda Devi i.e. the sister of the Informant, at which she went there and found the dead body of her sister with cut injury on the neck. The Appellant allegedly gave an extra judicial confession before the villagers and also in front of the police and disclosed that he had kept Dabiya in a nearby place which he also gave to the police
3. During trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W.1 Dr. Dayanand Roy conducted the postmortem of the deceased Sharda Devi and found the following injuries on her person :
(i) Upper part on the front of the neck was sharply and transversely cut up to the level of survical vertibra. Manges of brain was pale and intact thorax both lungs and pale and intact heart impact and empty. Abdomen stomach contains 100-150 ml of fluid with small quantity of semi digested food and abdominal visceras are normal limit. Uterus small and normal limit. Urinary bladder empty and external genitalia NAD.
He also proves the postmortem examination report as Exhibit 1.
4. P.W.2 Renuka Rani stated that on the night between 24/25.10.2008 the Appellant had killed his mother. When she went to the place of occurrence the next day at 11.30 A.M. she saw a big crowd of villagers and also the Officer Incharge. In front of the villagers and the Officer Incharge the Appellant confessed his guilt. In cross examination she stated that she had learnt about the occurrence the next day at 11 A.M. and was not an eye witness.
5. P.W.3 Pradip Kumar Mandal stated that on 24.10.2008 Sharda Devi was murdered and it was learnt that the Appellant had committed the murder. The next morning i.e. 25.10.2008 he went to the place of occurrence at 7 A.M. and saw the dead body with a cut injury on the neck. About 25-30 villagers had gathered there including P.W.2 Renuka Rani, who was Sarpanch of the village. In front of the villagers the Appellant gave his confessional statement which was recorded by the Daroga Jee. He signed on the same and he proves his signature as Exhibit 2/1. It was on the statement of the Appellant the Dabiya and a gunny bag used for wiping the hand was recovered. The seizure list was prepared by Chandra Shekhar Patro, upon which he signed and proves his signature as Exhibit 3. He also proves his signature on the fard beyan as Exhibit 4.
In cross examination he stated that on seeing a crowd on the place of occurrence he had gone there. He stated that he had seen the dead body in one of the three houses of the Appellant and he was standing nearby with a white shirt.
6. P.W.4 Parmanand Mandal stated that about 9-10 months back while he was sleeping in the morning the Officer Incharge came and called him. So he went to the house of Appellant Dinesh Mandal where he saw the mother of the Appellant dead with a cut injury on her neck. He found the police questioning the Appellant. Choukidar said that the earth was freshly dug out and from inside, on the pointing out of the Appellant the sickle was recovered. The Appellant confessed that he had killed his mother with the said weapon. He stated that the Appellant had not confessed to his guilt in his presence. The Sarpanch Renu Kumari (P.W.2) was also not presen
