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

2024 Supreme(Pat) 910

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI and Dr. ANSHUMAN, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 573 with 683 of 2016
(18.11.2024)
Suchit Mandal @ Sujeet Mandal
(in 573)
Binod Mandal & Ors. (in 683) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
(in both)

Advocates:
For the Appellants : M/s Sudhir Kumar Mishra (in 573); Ranjan Kumar Jha, Chy. Prem Kr. Thakur, Deepak Kumar (in 683).
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP(in both).

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Delay in lodging F.I.R. – Delay of approximately 14 hours in lodging the F.I.R. – Distance between the Police Station and the place of occurrence is 8 kms. – There is a substantial delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the deposition of the witnesses regarding the filing of separate complaints which are not brought on record suggest that the allegations, in the present F.I.R., is a coloured version of the case – Therefore, in the facts of the present case the inordinate delay is fatal to the prosecution. (Para 27)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Material witnesses not examined and the prosecution failed to give any justifiable reason for non-examination of this material witness – Witness is the signatory to the fardbeyan who could have provided an accurate account of the case, as an independent eye-witness – Non-examination of such material witness also raises doubts regarding the suppression of material facts by the prosecution – Occurrence taking place at 6.30 PM during winter – During winter, sun sets at about 5:00 – 5:15 PM – Nothing coming about any source of identification and thus, identification of the accused, in absence of any source in doubtful. (Para 29)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – From the inconsistencies in the deposition given by the so called eye-witnesses, even the place of, as narrated by the said witnesses, is doubtful and such a fundamental defect casts reasonable doubt as to the genuineness of the case of the prosecution – It is in a settled proposition of law that when the place of occurrence itself has not been established, it would not be proper to accept the version of the prosecution – The major inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses coupled with non-finding of blood-stains or blood-stained earth on the alleged murder weapon at the alleged place of occurrence too makes the case doubtful, which is fatal to the prosecution. (Para 31)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – P.W. 6 deposing that her father-in-law was shot dead but the post mortem report does not find any gun-shot injury on any part of the body – Her mother-in-law was also beaten by the butt of the gun and was injured but she has not been examined and non-examination of a material witness, who could provide essential information or fill gap in the prosecution case may lead the court to draw adverse inference – The Doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination has revealed that cause of death is head injury and nature of weapon used is hard and blunt substance – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the present appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment and order in quashed – Appeal allowed – Appellants acquitted. (Paras 32 to 34)

Kishan Singh Vs. Gurpal Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 775; Thulika Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393; Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 145; Syed Ibrahim Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 601 – Relied.

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.—Both these appeals arise out of common impugned judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2016 and order of sentence dated 18.05.2016 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-1st, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 310 of 2008, arising out of Sanhaula P.S. Case No. 02 of 2007. Both these appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’), whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the present appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs each and, on failure to deposit the same, further 2 years imprisonment has to be served. As the impugned judgment and order is common, learned counsels appearing for the parties jointly requested that both these appeals be heard together and be disposed of by common judgment.

2. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is as under:—

2.1. The informant has stated, in his fardbeyan, that on 01.01.2007, at about 06:30 in the evening, he was sitting in the courtyard in the sunlight. At that time, from the direction of Gerua River, Rishi Mandal, Bhola Mandal, Vidya Mandal and Bindu @ Binod Mandal came abusing him and asking about the whereabouts of Bhuksa. On hearing their voice, he hid himself behind the straw fence of the house which was situated to the north of the house. The female members and children of the house also ran away. Upon seeing his wife running, they chased her firing by pushing the eastern door. His wife was caught by Bishun Dev Tanti. Rishi Mandal injured her by hitting on her face with kunda and the other persons caught her and then threw her on the ground. His wife Babli Devi (aged around 65 years) died on the spot. While beating, Bishun Tanti was asking them to leave her as she was an old woman but they did not pay heed to the same. Bishun Dev Tanti and his wife were also told to keep quiet. He was watching everything hiding nearby. After that, those people left by crossing Gerua River. On the next day morning, he came to know that the mother of Hareram Mandal and Mahadev Mandal have been murdered. He crossed the Gerua River to verify it. Pago Devi (aged about 60 years) was found dead. Meena Devi, who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, told that, on 01.01.2007 at 05:30 p.m., Rishi Mandal, Subhash Singh @ Subba, Salil @ Shaligram Mandal, Suchit Mandal and Vilash Mandal all came to the courtyard abusing and told that she was instigating the village people against them. She does not favour them and that they will teach her a lesson for the same. Meena Devi told that she hid in a corner and witnessed the incident. After breaking the handle of the handpump of the courtyard, Rishi Mandal killed his mother-in-law Pago Devi by inflicting kicks and punches upon her. He broke his mother-in-law’s hands and legs. After this, he went to Mahadev Mandal’s house and saw that Mahadev Mandal was lying dead and his wife Faguni Devi was lying injured on the cot. The deceased’s daughter-in-law Archana Devi, aged about 32 years, told that last evening, at about 05:00 p.m., Rishi Mandal, Murari Mandal, Suchit Mandal, Bindu @ Binod Mandal, Salil @ Shaligram Mandal and Vilash Mandal entered the house abusing, with arms in their hands. The mother-in-law Faguni Devi was beaten and was injured and the father-in-law Mahadev Mandal was taken to the roof beating along and was shot in the forehead from a point blank range. His father-in-law died instantaneously. Then, he opened the other door and ran away. While running, he saw 2-3 persons outside the door whose names he did not know, but he can recognize them by face. After they left, he came back house. Rishi Mandal had forbidden everyone in the village that no one would give any telephonic conversation. Everyone was saying that he used to keep Hareram as his son-in-law in the house. The reason is that Rishi Mandal and his accomplices had carried out the incident due to th

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