NON-REPORTABLE

2026 INSC 194 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3105 OF 2025 GHANSHYAM MANDAL AND ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR RESPONDENT (NOW JHARKHAND)

J U D G M E N T

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Appeal No.533 of 1996. By that judgment, the conviction of the appellants by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.342 of 1986 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Digitally signed by has been upheld.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that as per the informant-Chetan Mandal on 15.08.1985 at about 03.30 P.M, while he was cutting grass at his courtyard, he heard shouts raised by his brother Bulaki Mandal. On coming out of his house and Signature Not Verified NIDHI AHaUJApproaching the passage outside, he saw Shiv Prasad Mandal and Date: 2026.02.25

18:00:15 IST Reason:

1 For short, the Penal Code

Dindayal Mandal having garasas in their hands, Anirudh Mandal having a sword in his hand, who were all entering the courtyard of his brother’s house. After raising slogans, they started assaulting him. The informant further saw that his brother Bulaki and nephew Hriday were being dragged out of the house and taken near the house of Jahazi in the passage by the aforesaid persons. He also saw Ghanshyam Mandal who was having a pistol and Gupti in his hand; Bijay Mandal having a farsa alongwith Sanjay Mandal having a bhala and Manoj Mandal having an axe in his hand. With these weapons, the aforesaid persons assaulted the informant’s brother and nephew, due to which both of them fell on the ground. The assault continued till the victims died on the spot. According to the informant, the occurrence was witnessed by various villagers. After the assault, the assailants fled away. He further stated that on the same day at about 06.00 A.M, two goats of Shiv Parsad Mandal had grazed the crops of Bulaki Mandal, due to which an altercation had taken place between them. At that time, Shiv Prasad Mandal had given threats of dire consequences to Bulaki Mandal. On the basis of such information, the case was registered on 15.08.1985. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial.

3. The appellants denied the charges and were accordingly tried. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of the charges while the accused examined three witnesses in their defence. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge of the Sessions Court came to the conclusion that it was the accused who were guilty of having committed the murder of Bulaki Mandal and Hriday Mandal. On being found guilty, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Penal Code.

The appellants preferred an appeal challenging their conviction. The High Court on a re-consideration of the entire evidence held that the occurrence had been duly proved by the four eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution. The motive behind the attack had been established. The High Court, therefore, upheld the conviction of the appellants and dismissed the appeal.

Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

4. Ms. Anjana Parkash, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants while assailing the judgment of the High Court submitted that both the Courts erred in believing the case of the prosecution on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution. All the witnesses examined were related to the deceased and hence were interested in the conviction of the appellants. Though independent witnesses were available, as was claimed by the prosecution, they had not been examined. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 was full of material contradictions and was, thus, inconsistent with the case of the prosecution. Such evidence was not liable to be accepted. It was further