Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
P.V.B.RAO,DAS, JJ.
Bihari Mandal
Versus
State
Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1955
Decided On : 24-04-1957
CRIMINAL LAW - CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER - SECTION 304, INDIAN PENAL CODE - EVIDENCE OF ACCOMPLICE - CORROBORATION REQUIRED - CASE LAW DISCUSSED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Bihari Mandal, was convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for causing the death of an 11-year-old boy, Ganesh Mahanti. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, who was working as a farmhand for Ganesh's uncle, had an affair with Ganesh's mother, Sachala, and killed Ganesh after he threatened to expose the affair. The appellant denied the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of Sachala, the only eyewitness to the murder, was not corroborated in material particulars and could not be relied upon to convict the appellant. The court also found that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case that Ganesh had been throttled to death.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of an accomplice is sufficient to convict an accused person without corroboration. 2. Whether the medical evidence in this case corroborated the testimony of the eyewitness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of an accomplice, such as Sachala, must be corroborated in material particulars in order to convict an accused person. The court also held that the medical evidence in this case did not corroborate the testimony of the eyewitness and therefore could not be used to convict the appellant.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and directed that he be released forthwith.
Judgement
P. V. B. RAO, J. :- The appellant Bihari Mandal was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mayurbhanj of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
2. The appellant was charged under S. 302, I. P. C., for having intentionally caused the death of a boy aged 11 years by name Ganesh Mahanti at about noon on Sunday, 6-3-55. The appellant was the Mulia of one Sartuk Mahanti (P. W. 6). P. W. 6 had two Pana Barajas-one big and one small in that village. The appellant used to water the Pana Barajas and dine and breakfast in the house of P. W. 6 on the days he worked in the Pana Barajas. P. W. 6 had a brother who died leaving his widow Ambika (P. W. 3) and a daughter. According to the evidence of P. W. 3, there was some intrigue between her and the appellant in consequence of which Ambika became pregnant and was driven out of the house.
Sachala (wife of P. W. 6) had a son and a daughter, the son Baikuntha being 10 years old and the daughter Lakshmi being 7 years old. The deceased Ganesh was the son of Nilakantha Mahanti (P. W. 4) a neighbour of Sartuk. Nilakantha also had a Pana Baraja near about that of Sartuk. Sunday was a day of Hat at two places, namely, Deula and Bhatgan. Both Sartuk and Nilakantha left their village with Pana leaves for marketing them in the respective Hats during the morning hours and were absent from home during the day. Ganesh, the deceased and Baikuntha the son of Sartuk were playmates being almost of the same age.
3. The case for the prosecution is that on the fore-noon of the day of occurrence, the appellant was working at the Pana Baraja of Sartuk and Sachala sent him breakfast consisting of Bhuja. The son and the daughter of Sartuk carried the breakfast and were playing with Ganesh and at that time Ganesh, it is alleged, having disturbed the water, the appellant gave him a slap. After taking the Bhuja the appellant asked the children of Sartuk to tell their mother to come with oil for his bath. The mother after finishing the cooking left with oil towards the Pana Baraja.
It is the prosecution case that when she handed over the oil to the appellant and was returning back, the appellant caught hold of her and forced her down into a depression and started ravishing her. Ganesh who was in the vicinity having been attracted by her cries went near and threatened the appellant that he would inform this matter to his Bada Bapa, namely, Sartuk. Thereupon the appellant got annoyed and gave him a slap. Ganesh got offended, abused the appellant for hitting him and said that he would definitely go and inform this intrigue to Sartuka.
As he was going away so saying, the appellant caught hold of him and throttled him by the neck and the boy died on the spot. Then the appellant carried the dead body of the boy into the Pana Baraja. Sachala who was still there became dumb-striken and ran away. When she was running away, the appellant gave her a threat that if she would divulge this fact to anyone, he would kill her and her son.
4. As Ganesh did not return home for the day meal, his mother (P. W. 2) went about in search of the boy, but did not find him at the usual places, namely, the Pana Baraja, the fields or the Pokhari. The husband (P. W. 4) of (P. W. 2 Annapurna) who had been to the Hat was communicated with. He returned about 2 Ghadis in the night and with his brother went about in search of the boy, but they could not find him in the night. Next morning before dawn, Nilakantha left for Udaypur to his Sadus house in expectation that the boy would have gone there, but did not find him there. When he was returning from that place, he learnt that a dark boy was found hanging on a tree at a distance from his Pana Baraja.
Before he reached his house, he met Rudra Patra who told him that his son was the person found hanging on a Badami tree. He at once lost his senses and could not go to the spot till the arrival of the Sub-Inspector. Hara Mahanti (P
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
