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) 1045

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, KHATIM REZA, JJ.
Dhiraj Kumar @ Dhiraj Kumar Mandal, S/o Sri Vijay Mandal @ Vijay Kumar Mandal – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.536 Of 2021 with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 811 of 2021
Decided On : 03-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, Adv., Mr. Umesh Kumar Verma, Adv., Mr. Kedar Jha, Adv., Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or prior enmity is insufficient for conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 364, 302, 201, 120

(B) and 34 - Conviction and sentencing of appellants for kidnapping, murder, and related offences - The court found insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, highlighting the lack of credible witness testimony and the unreliability of the prosecution's case. (Paras 4, 39)

(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or prior enmity is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 36, 39)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the kidnapping and murder of Rahul Kumar Das, with the prosecution relying on witness testimonies that were found to be unreliable and lacking corroboration. (Paras 6, 39)

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the appellants' guilt, leading to the conclusion that the deceased's death could not be attributed to them. (Paras 39, 40)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence to support the convictions. (Paras 36, 39)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required for conviction, emphasizing that the presence of prior enmity does not equate to guilt. (Paras 39)

Result: The judgment and order of conviction and sentence is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)

Both the appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. We have heard Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, the learned Advocate for appellant/Dhiraj Kumar @ Dhiraj Kumar Mandal in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 536 of 2021 and Mr. Kedar Jha & Mr. Arun Kumar, the learned Advocates for the appellants/Chandan Das @ Chandan Kumar Das and Md. Ashraf in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 811 of 2021 respectively.

3. The State, in the both the appeals, has been represented by Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

4. All the three appellants in the two appeals have been convicted for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the IPC) vide judgment dated 29.06.2021 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2018, arising out of Laheriasarai (Benta O.P.) P.S. Case No. 34 of 2018. By order dated 12.07.2021, they all have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC; to undergo imprisonment for ten years, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under Section 364 of the IPC; to undergo imprisonment for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for a period of three months for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer R.I. for a period of one year for the offence under Section 120(B) of the IPC.

5. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

6. One Rahul Kumar Das is said to have been kidnapped and then killed by the appellants. Allegedly, the dead-body was recovered on the confession of appellants/Chandan Das @ Chandan Kumar Das and Md. Ashraf.

7. The deceased died of several incised wounds on his body. The post-mortem examination on the dead-body was conducted on 01.02.2018 by Dr. Vijay Pratap Singh (P.W. 6). He had found one incised wound on the throat of the deceased of a big dimension. The margins of the wound would be found to be clean cut and the whole area filled with blood and clots. Because of the afore-noted wounds, all major vessels, trachea and esophagus were damaged. On the right forearm of the deceased also, there were four incised cuts. There were multiple wounds on the chest of the deceased as well. Cumulatively, the injuries led to bleeding, neurogenic shock and ultimate death of the deceased. The time of death was assessed between 14 to 20 hours of the post-mortem examination.

8. The Doctor (P.W. 6) had also found traces of alcohol in the stomach of the deceased.

9. For some reason or the other, the Viscera was not preserved.

10. The post-mortem report (Exhibit-7) as also the deposition of Dr. Vijay Pratap Singh (P.W. 6) completely establish and prove that the deceased died a homicidal death. The deceased was slashed to death brutally.

11. The brother of the deceased, namely, Rohit Kumar Das (P.W. 5) had lodged the written report regarding the kidnapping of the deceased. On his written report, initially, a case was instituted vide Laheriasarai (Benta O.P.) P.S. Case No. 34 of 2018, dated 31.01.2018 under Section 364/34 of the IPC, naming the appellants as also one Nandan Das, who does not appear to have been charge-sheeted. With the recovery of the dead-body a day after, Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of the IPC was added later.

12. According to the written report, referred to above, P.W. 5 received a message from his home on 31.01.2018 that his brother has been kidnapped. He came back to his maternal home, where both the brothers resided. One Md. Hira (P.W. 2) told him that on the same day at about 11 O’cloc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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