Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
A. M. Badar, Sunil Kumar Panwar, JJ.
Lalan Mahto, son of Laxman Mahto - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.81 of 2015
Decided On : 12-05-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder of brother – Life sentence – Mother of deceased and accused, in her chief examination has candidly stated that she has no information about incident in question – Similar is evidence of brother of deceased and accused – He has stated that he has no information about the incident – Widow of deceased has stated that she had not seen incident – She denied to have stated to police that she had seen commission of murder of her husband by accused – She was also not confronted with her police statement nor contradictions from her police statement was got proved by Investigating Officer – Evidence of this widow is also of no assistance to prosecution in establishing its case of commission of murder by accused – Even if it is assumed that contradictions in version of this hostile witness were got proved through evidence of Investigating Officer by Prosecutor then also such duly proved contradictions cannot be translated into substantive evidence before the Court – Such duly proved contradictions make substantive evidence of such hostile witness doubtful – First informant is father of deceased and accused – Evidence of this witness is totally unreliable witness and his evidence deserves to be rejected – His version in chief examination is totally contradictory from his version found in cross-examination and it is not possible to come to conclusion as to which of his version is truthful – Evidence of this witness suffers from serious infirmity making his version highly doubtful – It cannot be said with conviction that he was in fact an eye witness to incident of murder of his son – Trial Court has committed serious error of law while using police statementof first informant as corroborative piece of evidence – Similarly, F.I.R. can be used for the purpose of corroborating testimony of first informant but same cannot be treated as a piece of substantive evidence – It is for prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and if prosecution witnesses fail to prove injuries on deceased, accused cannot be made liable for murder of deceased – Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt – Appellant/accused acquitted of offence alleged against him. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15)
Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Evidence of hostile witnesses is required to be scrutinized closely in order to find out which part thereof is trustworthy and dependable – Similarly, as a rule of prudence Court must search for other evidence for gaining corroboration to such admissible evidence of hostile witnesses. (Para 6)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 162 – Statement recorded by police under Section 161 of Code ofCriminal Procedure cannot be used for corroborating version of prosecution witnesses. (Para 10)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Confession to police officer not to be proved – Provision of Evidence Act is for safeguarding interest of accused and for fair trial – It ensures that accused is not subjected to any inducement, threat,coercion or force to make confession to police – Settled principle of law is that statement made by accused before Police Officer which amounts to confession is barred by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. (Para 12)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof – Even for invoking provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, prosecution is bound to discharge initial burden of establishing prima facie guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts – Provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act cannot be invoked unless initial burden of prosecution is discharged by prosecution by adducing clear and cogent evidence. (Para 13)
JUDGMENT :
A. M. Badar, J.
By this Jail appeal, appellant/convicted accused Lalan Mahto is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2014 and 22.10.2014 respectively passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, in Sessions Trial No.48/02 of 2013/013, thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life with a direction to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to as “an accused”.
2. Facts in brief leading to the prosecution of the accused projected from the police report can be summarized thus:
(b). During the course of investigation, P.W.6 Md. Salim Khan, the Investigating Officer visited the spot of the incident and inspected it. He recorded statement of witnesses. The dead body was sent for autopsy and P.W.5 Dr. Ravindra Kumar Verma conducted post-mortem examination on dead body on 15.05.2012. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on completion of investigation, the accused came to be chargesheeted.
(c). The learned trial court had framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(d). In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution has examined in all six witnesses. One set of witnesses is inmates of house of the first informant Laxman Mahto whereas another set of witnesses examined by the prosecution comprises of official witnesses. P.W.1 Shanti Devi is mother whereas P.W.2 Sanjay Mahto is brother of the deceased Vinod Mahto and accused Lalan Mahto. P.W.3 Laxman Mahto, the first informant, is their father. P.W.4 Sunita Devi is widow of deceased Vinod Mahto. P.W.5 Dr. Ravindra Kumar Verma is the Medical Officer of Motihari Sadar Hospital, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Vinod Mahto. P.W.6 Md. Salim Khan, Sub Inspector, is the Investigating Officer of the subject crime.
(e). Defence of the accused was that of total denial. However, he did not enter in the defence.
(f). After hearing the parties, the learned trial court by the impugned Judgment and Order came to the conclusion that evidence of P.W.3 Laxman Mahto is acceptable being corroborated by his F.I.R. as well as his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His version is further corroborated by the medical evidence and the evidence of the Investigating Officer. The learned trial court further recorded that the accused had confessed his guilt as seen from his confessional statement (Ext.4) recorded by the police and these facts show that the accused committed the murder of deceased Vinod Mahto due to domestic dispute. That is how, with this reasoning, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to sentence him to suffer
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that....
Dying declarations must be corroborated by reliable evidence; significant contradictions in witness testimonies undermine their credibility, impacting the validity of the conviction.
The importance of credible eyewitness testimony, reliable and clinching evidence, and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The admissibility of confessions and the necessity of establishing a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence are crucial for conviction in murder cases. Procedural violations render confessions i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, the limited evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the need ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the charge for the commission of an offense beyond all reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of credible evi....
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
