SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Pat) 359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
A. M. BADAR and RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
(1.7.2022)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.175 of 2014
Chhutaharu Mandal : Appellant
Vs.
State of Bihar : Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants : M/s Ravindra Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Rajesh Roy.
For the Respondent: None.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 447 r/w Section 34 – Murder and criminal trespass – Common intention – Life sentence – Spot of occurrence is not proved as Investigator is not examined by prosecution – Even circumstances incriminating accused were not put to him while examining him under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. – Officially recorded dying declaration of deceased is not proved by prosecution – Document of prosecution which remained unproved cannot be utilised by prosecution but it is wrong to deny defence its user if it supports defence in any manner – Defence should not be shut out from making use of such document because prosecution has not formally proved it – Oral dying declaration of deceased is not at all consistent with her officially recorded dying declaration – Inconsistency in multiple oral dying declarations of deceased makes prosecution case suspect – FIR which is in fact a written dying declaration of deceased is not proved by prosecution – It was neither recorded in presence of Doctor nor officer who had recorded it was examined by prosecution – Appellant/accused acquitted. (Paras 4, 19 to 21)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dying declaration – For being conviction on the basis of dying declaration it is always required to be ascertained whether deceased was in a position to see and identify assailant – Dying declaration either oral or written stands on same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to principles governing weighing of evidence – Dying declaration is required to be subjected to a very close scrutiny keeping in view fact that it is statement made in absence of accused who had no opportunity of testing veracity of such statement by cross-examination of declarant – It becomes duty of Court to find out that deceased was in a fit state of mind to make dying declaration – If dying declaration is suspicious then it could not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (Para 9)

Khushalrao Vs. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1958 Supreme Court 22 – Relied.

JUDGMENT

A. M. BADAR, J.:–

By this appeal, Appellant/convicted accused Chhutaharu Mandal is challenging the Judgment and order dated 22.01.2014 and 24.01.2014 respectively passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge IV, Araria in Sessions Trial No. 281 of 2011 (Trial No. 49 of 2011) arising out of Forbesganj P.S. Case No. 78 of 2008, thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 447 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life apart from imposition of fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. He was not separately sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. For the sake of convenience, the appellant/accused shall be referred to in his original capacity as “an accused”.

2. Facts in brief projected from the police report leading to the prosecution of the accused can be summarized thus:—

a. It is case of the prosecution that at about 8 P.M. of 11.02.2008, at her own house, the accused sprinkled kerosene on person of Gulabi Devi (since deceased) and set her ablaze causing her death on 19.02.2018.

b. Gulabi Devi wife of Uganand Mandal was resident of village Hingna Aurahi falling under jurisdiction of Simraha Police Station in Araria District of Bihar. The accused is also resident of the same village. Gubabi Devi (since deceased) is the first informant who has set the criminal law in motion. As reflected from the FIR lodged by her at 2.15 P.M. of 12.02.2008 at the Referal Hospital, Forbesganj, at about 8 P.M. of 11.02.2008, she was sitting in the front yard of her house and was peeling the groundnut pods. At that time, accused/appellant Chhataharu Mandal came from behind and sprinkled kerosene on her person and thereafter set her ablaze by throwing a burning matchstick on her person. It is further reported by First Informant Gulabi Devi that when she turned behind to see, she saw Mungai Mandal, Gopal Mandal, Somal Mandal, Upendra Mandal, Ramdeo Mandal, Anmol Mandal and Mithu Mandal running away from her front yard. The First Informant further reported that thereafter her mother-in-law, i.e, PW 5 Kaila Devi starting shouting as well as extinguishing the fire. Villagers such as Yogendra Mandal, Bulanti Devi, Sita Ram Mandal and others came and extinguished fire from her person. As reported by the First Informant because it was late hour of the night and as no vehicle could be arranged, she stayed in the house and came to the hospital on the next day, i.e., on 12.02.2008. She stated that her medical treatment is going on at the Referal Hospital, Forbesganj. The FIR lodged by Gulabi Devi (since deceased) came to be recorded recorded by ASI Ram Prasan Prasad of the Forbesganj Police Station at the Referal Hospital, Forbesganj.

c. On the basis of the FIR of Gulabi Devi, Crime No. 78 of 2008 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 447 and 304 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against eight accused persons including present appellant/accused Chhutaharu Mandal and the investigation commenced. Statements of the witnesses came to be recorded by the Investigator. During the course of investigation, while taking treatment at the Sadar Hospital, Purnia, Gulabi Devi wife of Uganand Mandal succumbed to the burn injuries on 19.02.2008. Thereafter Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added to the case diary of the crime.

d. Post-mortem examination on dead body of Gulabi Devi came to be conducted by P.W. 8 Veer Kumar Singh. On completion of routine investigation, as seen from the record initially two other accused persons namely Somal Mandal and Mungai Mandal came to be charge sheeted and after committal, Sessions Trial No. 540 of 2009 came to be registered for prosecuting them. Subsequently, accused herein Chhutaharu Mandal came to be charge sheeted and on committal, Sessions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top