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
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
AI
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or prior enmity is insufficient for conviction.
The standard of proof for convicting a person of murder requires complete and conclusive evidence, and the prosecution must establish that the deceased 'must have' been killed by the accused.
The reliability of eyewitness accounts and dying declarations is crucial for a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC; discrepancies and doubts in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
The mere recovery of a body from an accused's statement is insufficient for conviction under murder charges; corroborative evidence is essential.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical findings, even absent direct physical evidence like weapon recovery.
The conviction of the appellants for double murder was upheld as the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible witness testimonies and medical evidence, despite the absence of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.