IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI and Dr. ANSHUMAN, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 285 of 2016
(16.10.2025)
Manjan Mahto & Anr. ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Murder – Common intention – Life imprisonment – There are in total 14 prosecution witnesses, out of which evidence of 10 prosecution witnesses is of no value as they have turned hostile – Evidence of Doctor who conducted post-mortem has only indicated cause of death, while evidence of Investigating Officer and recorder of alleged dying declaration is most relevant – Recorder of dying declaration has deposed that victim could not narrate entire incident, and he did not obtain any certificate from doctor regarding victim's mental condition to confirm her fitness to give statement – Dying declaration was not recorded in a question-and-answer format, which ordinarily should have been the case – There exist major contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements in deposition of prosecution witnesses – Prosecution has failed to prove its case against appellants beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence quashed and set aside and appellants acquitted of charges levelled against them by Trial Court – Appeal allowed. (Paras 31 to 35 to 37)
Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard learned counsel Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, for the appellants assisted by Mr. Upendra Kumar Chaubey, learned Advocate and Mr. S. A. Ahmad, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’) challenging the Judgment of conviction dated 2nd of March, 2016 and the order of sentence dated 5th March, 2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Sessions Trial No. 555 of 2014 arising out of Lauriya P.S. Case No. 05 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 139 of 2004 holding the appellants guilty under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is as under: –
As per the written statement of the informant, Lalan Mahato, his sister, Samtola Devi alias Munni Devi, had been married to the son of Ramuna Mahato in Nanhkar Belwa village, located in the Lauriya police station area, approximately three years ago. It is stated that she was repeatedly subjected to physical abuse by her husband and in-laws, who blamed her for being unable to bear children. On the morning of January 12, 2014, at around 8:00 AM, Lalan received a call informing him that his sister had been set on fire and was severely burned by her husband, Manjan Mahato, along with Ramuna Mahato. At the time, Samtola Devi was being treated at Lauriya hospital. Upon arriving at the hospital, the informant observed that his sister had sustained serious burns, and the attending doctor referred her to M.J.K. Hospital in Bettiah for further treatment. Lalan Mahto subsequently took his sister to Bettiah, but tragically, she succumbed to her injuries and passed away in the car on the way there.
4. Based on the informant's written report, Lauriya Police Station Case No. 5/2014 was registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused named in the FIR, namely Manjan Mahato and Samtola Devi. The investigation against the other accused, Ramuna Mahato, remained ongoing.
5. On 18.06.2014, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and transferred the case to the Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, by an order dated 05.08.2014, the Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The case was received in the Court of the Sessions Judge on 19.08.2014, who passed an order transferring it to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-VI.
6. On 19.08.2014, charges were framed against the aforementioned accused under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the prosecution concluded its evidence on 10.12.2015, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No defence evidence was presented by either party in the case. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Court passed the judgment of conviction and sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
7. In this case, a total of 14 witnesses have been presented by the prosecution. The prosecution's post-mortem examination is Exhibit 1, Lauria Police Station Case No. 5/14's Fardbeyan is Exhibit 2, dying declaration of Samtola Devi is Exhibit 3, handwriting and signature of the written report is Exhibit 4, formal FIR of Lauriya police station case no. 5/14 is Exhibit 5, inquest report is Exhibit 6, Station Diary
Koli Chunilal Savji vs. State of Gujarat
Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra
P.V. Radhakrishna vs. State of Karnataka
The court ruled that a dying declaration must be credible and recorded under proper conditions; discrepancies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant.
The reliability and consistency of dying declarations are crucial in criminal cases, especially when multiple contradictory declarations are present.
: Conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of dying declaration and there is no need of corroborative evidence provided dying declaration is voluntary.
The court established that a dying declaration, when properly recorded and corroborated, is admissible and sufficient for conviction, despite procedural concerns regarding its recording.
[A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be voluntary, coherent, and made in a fit mental state, even in the presence of minor inconsistencies.]
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.