Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 1068
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAKESH KUMAR, MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, JJ.
Hardeo Jha, Son of late Shiv Kant Jha & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.258 of 1993
Decided On : 08-08-2017
For the Appellants : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Counsel Sri Dinesh Jha, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Mr. Kaushlesh Singh
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction.
Headnote:
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 302 - MURDER - COMMON INTENTION - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 3 - RELEVANCY OF FACTS - ARMS ACT, 1959 - SECTION 27 - PUNISHMENT FOR USING ARMS - WITNESS - CREDIBILITY - TESTIMONY - EVALUATION - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - MOTIVE - RELEVANCE - COURT ANALYSIS - REASONING - JUDGEMENT - REVERSAL OF CONVICTION - SECTION 374(2) - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - APPEAL - ADMISSION - BAIL - DISCHARGE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with seven others, had committed dacoity and murder in the house of the informant, resulting in the deaths of his father and brother. The appellants denied the charges and claimed alibi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted several inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution's case, including the fact that the appellants, who were known to the informant and his family, would have committed the crime without covering their faces, and that the post-mortem examination report did not support the prosecution's claim that the deceased had been shot twice. The court also noted that six other accused persons who were tried on the same set of evidence had been acquitted by the trial court.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that there were several inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution's case, and that the post-mortem examination report did not support the prosecution's claim that the deceased had been shot twice. The court also noted that six other accused persons who were tried on the same set of evidence had been acquitted by the trial court. The court concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellants' convictions and sentences, and directed that they be released from custody.
RAKESH KUMAR, J.
1. The present Appeal was filed on behalf of two appellants under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1985 arising out of Bathnaha P.S. Case No. 33 of 1983 dated 10.04.1983 registered for the offence under Section 302/34/380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 27 of the Arms Act by Sri Anil Kumar Verma, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi. By the said judgment the learned trial judge held the appellant no. 1/Hardeo Jha guilty and convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned trial judge further held appellant no. 2/Siyaram Mahto guilty for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced Hardeo Jha to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant no. 2/Siyaram Mahto was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Short fact of the case is that fardbyan of Yogendra Mahto, son of Ram Prasad Mahto (deceased) of village Dharampur, Police Station-Bathnaha, district-Sitamarhi was recorded on 10.4.1983 at about 4.00 A.M. Hours by Sub Inspector of Police Sri S.N Shukla in the village-Dharampur itself. In the fardbyan Yogendra Mahto disclosed that in the preceding night he was sleeping in an another house with his family and his father with his second wife was sleeping in Bailgahara (place where oxes were kept). At about 12.00 in the night his choti ma (second wife of his father) arrived and told the informant that his father was apprehended by accused persons. Thereafter, the informant keeping a torch in his hand and came out of his house and in the torch light he seen that his father was caught by appellant no. 2/Siyaram Mahto and one another accused Ram Pratap Mahto. At that very time appellant no. 1/Hardeo Jha was holding a gun in his hand. He clarified that accused-Siyaram Mahto/appellant no. 2 and Ram Pratap Mahto were also carrying lathi in their hand. Immediately when the informant flashed torch Siyaram Mahto ordered to catch him. Thereafter his father started begging to accused persons to leave him and whatever the accused persons wanted to take away, they may take. The informant further stated that appellant no. 1/Hardeo Jha told that firstly he will kill him thereafter he will do some other thing. Saying this, he opened two fire on the chest of his father, due to which his father instantly fell down and died. The informant further disclosed that at that very time itself near the southern house accused-Sakoor Mian and Ramu Safi were pushing the door and after breaking the door they entered inside the house. He disclosed that accused Sri Narain Jha (son of Hardeo Jha) was carrying a small gun and after entering inside the room they entered into the room where his younger brother Surendra Mahto (deceased) and his wife (injured) were sleeping and then the informant heard sound of firing of gun. Thereafter the informant after raising alarm moved towards road on Eastern side and called the villagers. After the villagers assembled the appellant no. 1/Hardeo Jha threatened the villagers. After the villagers raised hulla the accused persons fled towards western area. The informant claimed that besides him his brother Mahendra and Rajendra, uncle Ram Sewak Mahto, his choti maa, wife of Surendra Mahto (deceased), Indal Mahto, Ram Chalitra Mahto, Mallu Paswan and others had identified the accused persons. He claimed that villagers had also chased the accused persons. While they were being chased, appellant no. 2/Siyaram Mahto had fired on Ram Sewak Mahto, which did not hit and thereafter a
