Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUDHIR SINGH, CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Ram Ekbal Mahto S/o Late Yadu Mahto – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 242 of 1995
Decided On : 24-06-2022
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 34 - The court discussed the inconsistency in the testimonies of witnesses, the failure to establish the place of occurrence, and the inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence. The court highlighted the fundamental defect in the prosecution case due to inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and a co-accused assaulted the deceased during a dispute over property, resulting in the deceased's death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the place of occurrence, the presence of eye witnesses, and the consistency between the ocular and medical evidence. The court also noted the possibility of false implication due to a property dispute.
Issues: (i) Failure to establish the place of occurrence, (ii) Inconsistency in the testimonies of eye witnesses, (iii) Inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence is a fundamental defect in the prosecution case, and unless reasonably explained, it is sufficient to discredit the entire case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellant's conviction, and acquitted him from the charges. The appellant was discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.
Certainly! Please
JUDGMENT :
SUDHIR SINGH, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant against the judgment and order dated 30.6.1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 229/1988 (G.R. Case No. 1159/1985) arising out of Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 120/1985 whereby and whereunder the sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.06.1985 at about 1 p.m. the deceased Dinesh Kumar Singh went to the house of the informant and asked him to accompany for plucking mangoes in village Izra. The informant along with deceased Dinesh Kumar Singh left for village Izra on bicycle and reached the house of Ram Ekbal Mahto (appellant). After leaving bicycle at the door, they went to nearby orchard. A labourer of the deceased namely Bindeshwar Paswan (PW-1) also reached there with bags and bamboos. The informant climbed on to the mango tree and started plucking mangoes. The deceased and PW-1 were collecting the mango on the ground. In the meantime, the appellant came there and asked the deceased as to why he was plucking the mangoes upon which an altercation took place in between them. In the meantime, Yadu Mahto (co-accused) arrived with lathi and assaulted the deceased due to which he fell down whereafter the appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased with hasua. The appellant chased the informant and caught hold of him, however, of his plea, he left him. Bindeshwar Paswan (PW-1) after seeing the deceased lying in injured condition fled away. On hulla, several persons assembled there. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The motive behind the occurrence alleged in the F.I.R. is that the deceased and accused persons are patidars and there was dispute over partition of property between them. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 4.30 on the same day at the place of occurrence on the basis of which Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 120/1985 was registered against two accused persons.
3. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as eight (08) prosecution witnesses viz. PW-1 Bindeshwar Paswan, PW-2 Sita Paswan (informant), PW-3 Ramjee Singh, PW-4 Mohan Singh, PW-5 Baleshwar Singh, PW-6 Arun Kumar Singh, PW-7 Dr. Bhola Prasad (doctor who conducted post mortem of the deceased) and PW-8 the investigating officer. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have claimed to be eye witnesses. PW-4 and PW-5 were examined as being seizure witness. PW-6 was Judicial magistrate who recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The defence has not examined any witness in support of its case.
4. It is the case of the appellant before this Court that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence. It is also contended that the presence of the eye witnesses is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt for the reason that there is material inconsistencies in the testimony of all the eye-witnesses. It has also been argued that the ocular evidence of assault is not corroborated with the medical evidence i.e. the post-mortem report of the deceased. It is a case of false implication due to property dispute between the parties.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the Court below needs no interference. The prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the materials available on record. Following issues arise for consideration in this case:
(ii) Whether there is material contradiction with regard to the presence of eye witne
Inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence discredits the prosecution case.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
The prosecution must prove the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt, and material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence can discredit the entire case. Non-examination of the Inves....
The prosecution must establish the credibility of evidence and corroborate testimonies with medical evidence; failure to do so results in reasonable doubt and reversal of conviction.
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
