A murder appeal against conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC from a 1989 Munger killing. The court found the key witnesses' testimony inconsistent and unsupported, noted the unexplained absence of the investigating officer and post-mortem discrepancies, and acquitted the appellant giving him benefit of doubt.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.712 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-1989 Thana- NAYA RAM NAGAR District- Munger
====================================================== Mani Mandal, Son of Karan Singh, Resident of Naya Tola Patam, P.S. - Naya Ram Nagar, District-Munger
... ... Appellant/s
The State of Bihar
Versus ... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 08-01-2024
Singh assisted by Mr. Subodh Kumar, the learned Advocates for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha,
the learned APP.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.712 of 2016 dt.08-01-2024 2/12
Penal Code vide judgment dated 27.05.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Munger in connection with Sessions Trial No. 529 of 1990, arising out of Naya Ram Nagar P.S. Case No. 61 of 1989. By order dated 31.05.2016, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer imprisonment for three months.
accused in this case but the appellant only survived to face the Trial.
11 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
brother of the deceased (Chandar Mandal), on 26.08.1989 alleging that in the night intervening between 25th and 26th of August, 1989 he and Amrendra Kumar Mandal (P.W. 1), Raj Kumar Mandal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.712 of 2016 dt.08-01-2024 3/12
(P.W. 4) and Abhimanyu Prasad Singh @ Manu (P.W. 9) were talking on the roof-top and waiting for his
brother/deceased to come. He was scheduled to come from a work place where he worked in the night shift. Early in the morning, after one train had stopped at the rail-road crossing somewhere near the house of the informant (P.W. 5), he heard a sound of firing. Since he knew about his brother’s programme of coming back home by the same train and he was also aware that his brother had enmity with people in the village, he suspected some mishap.
4 and 9, referred to above, came out of his house only to find from a distance that two of the accused persons had caught the deceased while the appellant and another fired from their weapons, killing him. Later, the accused persons left the P.O. while firing in order to safely effect their escape.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.712 of 2016 dt.08-01-2024 4/12
have gone to the police station to report about the occurrence.
examination when the Doctor/P.W. 9 (Dr. K.K.
Bajpaiyee) found the body ridden with three wounds of entry. The deceased had died of gun-shots.
relied upon the deposition of Bharat Mandal (P.W. 5) and Meena Devi (P.W. 7) to record the finding of guilt against the appellant.
P.W. 5 that it is not worthy of complete reliance. We say so for the reason that his version at the Trial has not been supported by Amrendra Kumar Mandal and
Raj Kumar Mandal, who were present at the time of occurrence and had accompanied Bharat Mandal to the place from where they saw the deceased being shot at.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.712 of 2016 dt.08-01-2024 5/12
Amrendra Kumar Mandal and Raj Kumar Mandal, though have confirmed the story of the deceased having
been shot at in the early hours of 26.08.1989, but did not claim to identify anybody as the marauders. In fact, Raj Kumar Mandal (P.W. 4) was a guest in the house of
Bharat Mandal and was related to him and the deceased, both, in a direct way.
he would not have backed out in not naming them before the Trial Court.
only in order to avenge the earlier enmity with the
appellant, has named him as one of the assailants of the deceased.
Devi though claims to have seen the occurrence but her deposition does not inspire confidence for the reason that there is no reference in the FIR made by Bharat
Mandal that she had also accompanied the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.712 of 2016 dt.08-01-2024 6/12
informant/P.W. 5, P.W. 1 and P.W. 9 to the place from
where they spotted the deceased being shot dead.
have been tendered at the Trial.
framed in this case on 13.05.1992. By that time, one Bijay Tanti, one of the accused persons of this case was reported to have died and, therefore, the proceedings
against him had to be dropped. The case of another accused, viz., Ambika Mandal was separated in the year 2007.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.712 of 2016 dt.08-01-2024 7/12
the Trial but because of his jumping the bail bonds, his bail was cancelled on 28.01.2016. He was taken in
custody on 30.03.2016 and since then, he is in jail.
we are also not sure whether there was any means of identification of the accused persons by the appellant and that too from a distance.
the prosecution for the non-examination of the I.O.
would have got down the train at the rail-road crossing.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.712 of 2016 dt.08-01-2024 8/12
The number has been stated to be approximately 250 to 300. The deceased then would not have been killed
in presence of all the travellers.
the school compound where the deceased was dragged and then shot dead.
deposition of the wife of the deceased (P.W. 7) to be doubtful for the reason of there being no evidence on record of her having made such statement before the police during the course of investigation. Otherwise
also, if the deposition of P.W. 5 is to be believed, she had not accompanied him and others to the P.O.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.712 of 2016 dt.08-01-2024 9/12
are expected to be provided in the FIR, but the
presence of the wife of the deceased along with the informant of this case is an important fact providing sufficient materials to the case, which if not stated in the FIR, raises eyebrows.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.712 of 2016 dt.08-01-2024 10/12
to us.
conviction appears to have been recorded only on the solitary evidence of the brother of the deceased, viz., Bharat Mandal/P.W. 5, whose version is not free from infirmities. That he proceeded to look for his brother, unarmed and without any preparation, also appears peculiar to us especially when P.W. 5 had heard the sound of firing; knew about the programme of the deceased as also that the deceased had enmity in the village.
his deposition is that he did not offer any evidence of his having seen the occurrence in the torch light. He had not given the torch to the Investigator. No person
of the village, according to him, came for the rescue of the deceased.
because of land dispute, the sole surviving appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.712 of 2016 dt.08-01-2024 11/12
has been named as one of the accused persons.
is difficult for us to sustain the conviction of the appellant.
aside the judgment and order of conviction of the appellant and acquit him of the charge levelled against him.
that the appellant is in jail since 2016. He is directed to
be released forthwith from jail, if not detained or
wanted in any other case.
dispatched to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail
forthwith for compliance and record.
the Trial Court forthwith.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.712 of 2016 dt.08-01-2024 12/12
stand disposed off accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Nani Tagia, J)
Sauravkrsinha/ Krishna-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 09.01.2024 |
| Transmission Date | 09.01.2024 |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant's conviction for murder under Sections 302/34 IPC, based mainly on unreliable witness testimony, could be sustained.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mani Mandal
The State of Bihar
Ashutosh Kumar
Nani Tagia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
