IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 598 of 1994 with 1 of 1995
(24.11.2025)
Manindra Tiwary @ Munna Tiwary (in 598)
Satyendra Mani Tripathi & Anr. (in 1) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
(in both)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Murder – Common intention – Life imprisonment – PWs are not eye witnesses to alleged occurrence – There is dearth of ocular evidence so as to make the same a basis for proving guilt of appellants beyond all reasonable doubt – Fardbeyan appears to be ante-dated and first version has been suppressed – Time mentioned in inquest report also appears to be have been interpolated – Prosecution has withheld evidence of independent witnesses which creates doubt about actual mode and manner of occurrence – Actual mode and manner of occurrence appears to have been suppressed by prosecution – Informant has not sustained any injury which makes his presence doubtful at place of occurrence – Night was pitch dark as also no torch was lighted/flashed at the time when firing was resorted to – It was impossible for informant to have identified accused persons who had actually engaged in firing, leading to deceased being inflicted with gunshot injuries, resulting in his death – There is grave conflict in-between oral evidence and medical evidence – Medical evidence completely rules out all possibility of injuries taking place in manner alleged – Prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts commission of offence by appellants – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside and appellants acquitted of charges levelled against them – Appeals allowed. (Paras 65 to 73 and 75)
Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Unless medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of injuries taking place in the manner alleged, testimony of eye witnesses cannot be thrown out. (Para 71)
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The aforesaid appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.1994 and 30.11.1994 respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No. 618 of 1992 / 37 of 1994 (arising out of Govindganj (Malahi) Police Station Case No. 18 of 1992) by the learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Judge’), hence the same are being disposed off by the present common judgment and order. By the said judgment dated 29.11.1994, the appellants of the aforesaid two appeals have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as far as the appellants of the second case are concerned, they have also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. By the order of sentence dated 30.11.1994, the appellants of the aforesaid two appeals have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and as far as the appellants of the second case are concerned, they have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. The short facts of the case as per the fardbeyan of the informant Jaikant Mani Tripathi (PW-12), recorded by the Sub- Inspector of Police, namely M. S. Khan (PW-13), Officer-in-Charge, Malahi Police Station on 04.02.1992 at 00:30 a.m. at the bathan of Ambika Sah of village Nagdaha is that in the night at about 09:00 p.m. he along with his deceased brother Deo Saran Mani Tripathi were going for irrigating their field towards the eastern-southern side of their house and when they reached south of Harijan Toli, situated near Primary School, Nagdaha some people had surrounded them, whereupon his deceased brother, in the light of the torch, which he was holding in his hand, had recognized the co-villagers, namely Satyendra Mani Tripathi, Kamendra Mani Tripathi and Manoj Tiwary, who were holding rifle and double barrel gun respectively in their hands, whereupon the deceased brother of the informant asked them as to why they have surrounded them, upon which Satyendra Mani Tripathi (appellant no.1 of the second case) said that he is the person who had accumulated co-villagers, got their signatures and had got them to depose against them, hence they would kill him. Thereafter, both the brothers had ran towards the northern side near Nagdaha Giri tola but the said accused persons had fired from their rifle/gun indiscriminately resulting in the brother of the informant falling on the road on the southern side of Nagdaha Giri tola on account of being hit by gun shots, whereafter the informant while raising hulla had ran towards Giri tola and on hearing his hulla (alarm) as also upon hearing the sound of gunshot firing, Bhibhikhan Giri (P.W. 3), Ram Dekhan Giri (P.W. 5), Vijay Kant Giri (P.W. 7) and Ramraj Giri (P.W. 4) as also many other persons had arrived there, who had seen the accused persons running away, whereupon they had chased them but they managed to flee away towards the village. The informant had then gone near his brother Deo Saran Mani Tripathi, who had fallen on the ground and had found him to be dead as also he was smeared with blood. He had been hit by gun shots on his head, back, neck and chest. The informant has further stated that the reason for the said occurrence is that Satyendra Mani Tripathi (appellant no.1 of the second case) is Chairman of Nagdaha Cooperative Society and he has withdrawn Rs. 4-5 lacs belonging to him and other villagers, which was being opposed to by his brother, who had also got a representation filed on behalf of the villagers as also had got the villagers to depose against him. The fardbeyan of the informant was signed by Bachandeo Giri and Bipin Giri (P.W. 10) as witnesses to the same.
3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan of the informant,
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to substantial doubts regarding the credibility of witness testimo....
The court holds that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant contradictions in eyewitness accounts and absence of supporting medical evidence, warranting acqu....
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts undermined the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt of their involvement in the crime.
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.