Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.370 OF 1994
[Appeal against the judgment and order dated
27.9.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No.198 of 1993/
8 of 1994]
ARUN KUMAR MANDAL SON OF RAMDEO MANDAL, RESIDENT OF
MOHALLA TELI TOLA, NAEI BAZAR, MUZAFFARPUR, P.S. TOWN
MUZAFFARPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR
.......................... Appellant
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. SHIV SHANKAR THAKUR S/O SRI JAGDISH PD. THAKUR,
MOHALLA NAI BAZAR, TELI TOLA, P.S. TOWN MUZAFFARPUR,
DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR .............. Respondents
For the Appellant : Mr. Deep Nr. Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Singh No.1, Addl. P.P.
---------
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH
Anjana The appellant has been convicted u/s. 304 Part II/149
Prakash, J:
I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for ten years by a judgment dated
27.9.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No.198 of 1993/ 8 of 1994.
The case of the prosecution is that on 18.1.1992 when
the informant was in his shop, his son informed him that the
accused persons were threatening his father to withdraw the
case and when he refused to do so, he was thrashed. When he
went there, he learnt that the accused persons have taken
away his father from the house and later he found his father in
injured condition, on account of which he was admitted in the
-2-
Hospital on 18.1.1992. The present First Information Report
was instituted on 20.1.1992 initially for offences u/ss.147, 452,
323 and 307 I.P.C., but later on Section 302 I.P.C. was added
after the death of the deceased.
During trial the prosecution has examined nine
witnesses in all even though there were only five witnesses
named in the charge sheet. It appears from the analysis of
evidence that P.W.1 is the informant, whereas the P.W.2 and
P.W.3 are his sons and P.W.6 and P.W.7 are the wife and
mother of the informant respectively, whereas the P.W.4, P.W.5
and P.W.9 are formal and P.W.8 is the doctor, who held the
postmortem examination.
From the evidence adduced on behalf of the
prosecution, I find that not a single independent witness has
been examined nor is there any explanation as to why the fard
beyan was given two days after the occurrence. It also appears
that all the witnesses have merely stated about the first part of
the occurrence that the deceased had been thrashed by the
accused persons. The doctor, four days after the occurrence,
found abrasions on the external parts of the body of the
deceased and some fractures, which were all allegedly caused
by hard and blunt substance. Since it is difficult to conclude that
the appellant alone had caused the death of the deceased
more so because there is no allegation that the deceased was
assaulted by the appellant with hard and blunt object.
-3-
In the result, the appellant deserves to be acquitted on
benefit of doubt and thus this appeal is allowed and the order of
conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on
27.9.1994 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in
Sessions Trial No.198 of 1993/ 8 of 1994 is set aside.
( Anjana Prakash, J. )
Patna High Court
Dated, 6th April, 2011.
NAFR/ Narendra/
