Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, DEEPAK ROSHAN, JJ.
Mangleshwar Bhagat & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 84 of 1997(R)
Decided On : 10-06-2024
[IPC] - [Murder and Unlawful Assembly] - [Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC] - [The court discussed the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the necessity of proving the common object and participation of the accused in the unlawful assembly. The court interpreted that mere presence at the scene of the crime without corroborative evidence of participation in the assault does not suffice for conviction. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the reversal of the conviction.]
Fact of the Case:
The case arose from a murder incident on 15.08.1993, where Mangal Bhagat was allegedly killed by a group of individuals due to a long-standing land dispute. The informant, Bisu Bhagat, claimed that the accused surrounded and assaulted his son, leading to his death. The prosecution presented several witnesses, but many were declared hostile or did not support the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant contradictions in the testimonies of the key witnesses, particularly the informant and his wife. The evidence presented did not convincingly establish the involvement of all accused in the murder, nor did it prove the common object necessary for a conviction under Section 149 IPC. The court concluded that the trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 IPC, and whether the trial court's conviction was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a conviction based on the testimony of a solitary witness is permissible only if the evidence is consistent and free from major contradictions. In this case, the evidence was found to be unreliable, leading to the conclusion that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellants were set aside, and they were discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.03.1997 (sentenced passed on 31.03.1997) passed by Shri Mahesh Prasad Tiwari, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No. 296 of 1994/ Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code while the appellant No. 3 has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 147 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and all the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence u/s 302/149 IPC and the appellants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence u/s 148 IPC while the appellant No. 3 has been additionally sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 147 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The appellants No. 2 and 5, namely, Budhdeo Bhagat and Birsa Bhagat have died during the pendency of this appeal and hence this appeal stood abated so far as the appellants No. 2 and 5 are concerned.
4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Bisu Bhagat (P.W. 8) recorded on 15.08.1993 at 11.30 a.m. at Village Rocho, Barwa Toli in which it has been stated that in the morning of the same day he had gone to the field to till his land along with Debiya Oroan, Deodhan Oraon, Sukhdeo Oraon, Chame Oraon and Sani Oraon and some other persons were also present who were sprinkling seeds on the land. The son of the informant, namely, Mangal Bhagat was also working in the field. It has been alleged that at about 8.30 a.m. Birsa Bhagat with a Kari, Budhdeo Bhagat with a Balua, Mangleshwar Bhagat with a Barchha, Budhman Bhagat with a Lathi, Laldeo Bhagat with a Bhala, Fulua Devi and Sumi Devi all of village Rocho, Barwa Toli came to his field and attempted to assault him, but he managed to get away. Thereafter they started chasing the son of the informant Mangal Bhagat and all the accused persons surrounded his son. Even when his son pleaded for his life, the accused persons did not listen and Budhdeo Oraon assaulted him twice on his head with a Balua and the son of the informant fell down and the accused persons started raining blows upon him, as a result of which he died at the spot. The reason for the occurrence is a long standing land dispute between both the sides.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Kuru P.S. Case No. 78/1993 was instituted against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the I.P.C. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 296 of 1994. Charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 302/149 of the I.P.C.; Budhman Bhagat, Phulwa Devi and Sumi Devi were additionally charged u/s 147 I.P.C. which the rest four accused persons were further charged u/s 148 I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as twelve (12) witnesses in support of its case.
P.W. 1 Dr. M.M. Sengupta was posted at Sadar Hospital, Lohardaga and on 16.08.1993 he had conducted autopsy on the body of the Mangal Bhagat and had found the following injuries :
(i) One incised wound in the front of neck cutting across the lower part of neck cutting the trachea, aesophagus, major blood vessels of the neck & soft tissues of neck & cutting the third cervical vertebra.
Coagulated blood along the edges of the wound of since 8" x 4" x 3" only 3" skin of the neck was intact.
(ii) One incised wound on the left knee-1" x 1/2 "x
The necessity of corroborative evidence in cases of murder and the interpretation of common object under Section 149 IPC, emphasizing that mere presence at the scene does not equate to participation ....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the absence of independent witnesses and reliance on biased testimony led to the acquittal being upheld.
Conviction for murder upheld based on consistent eyewitness accounts despite concerns about the independence of witnesses, highlighting the relevance of cohesive testimonies over minor contradictions....
The judgment emphasizes the need for caution in evaluating evidence in a grave crime, the requirement for independent corroboration of related witnesses, and the importance of proving the plea of ali....
[The judgment establishes that in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious charges like murder, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubts r....
The judgment establishes that a concerted attack resulting in death, supported by credible eyewitness testimony, constitutes sufficient grounds for conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, regardles....
The court upheld the convictions under sections 147, 148, and 324 IPC, affirming that eyewitness and medical testimonies established the involvement of the appellants in the unlawful assembly and ass....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
