Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Prem Lal Mandal & Anr. v. State Of Bihar

Jharkhand High Court

Feb 15, 2006

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Concise Analytical Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellants Prem Lal Mandal (A1) and Dhola Mandal (A3) were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Another co-accused, Bhuneshwar Mandal, had been acquitted by the trial court in Sessions Case No. 79 of 1988/6 of 1989. The present appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants.

The prosecution's case, as recorded in the trial, was that a dispute over irrigation between PW2 (Babulal Mandal, father of the deceased) and the 2nd appellant (Dhola) gave rise to a motive. On 4-3-1988 at about 3:00 p.m., when PW2 went to the market, the deceased and PW3 (the deceased's sister, aged about seven at the relevant time) were at the field. The appellants allegedly took the deceased from the field to see a film after sending PW3 home. The deceased did not return that night and, at about 8:00 p.m., his dead body was found lying on a cot in front of his house. PW2 gave a fard beyan (Ext. 2) to the police (investigating officer PW10), an inquest report (Ext. 6) and seizure list (Ext. 7) were prepared, and an autopsy was performed by PW9 (Dr. Ashok Kumar), who issued post mortem certificate Ext. 4 and opined that death resulted from injuries to the neck.

PW2 asserted that he apprehended the 1st appellant (Premlal) and that Premlal confessed that the 2nd appellant had killed the deceased; PW2 later produced Premlal before PW10. After investigation, a final report was filed and the appellants were tried. When examined under Section 313 CrPC, they denied incriminating circumstances and did not call any defence witnesses. The appeal was heard with assistance of an amicus curiae for the appellants.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the prosecution, relying largely on circumstantial evidence, proved all the necessary links in the chain of circumstances to establish that the appellants caused the death of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the extra‑judicial statement allegedly made by the 1st appellant to PW2 (apprehended by PW2) was admissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, having regard to the presence of inducement or persuasion.
Whether any alleged confession or statement by the 1st appellant could be used as evidence against the 2nd appellant (i.e., the legal effect of an accused's extra‑judicial confession with respect to co‑accused).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' (Amicus Curiae) Arguments

The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence but did not establish all links in the chain of circumstances necessary to prove that the appellants committed the murder.
The testimony of PW2 that he apprehended Premlal (1st appellant) and that Premlal blamed the 2nd appellant (Dhola) was not supported by the investigating officer PW10; the trial judge had found against the prosecution on this aspect.
On these grounds, the trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellants and they should be acquitted.

The opinion does not contain a detailed statement of the State's arguments in opposition; it records only that the Court heard counsel for the State and perused the materials on record.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded in the following steps, drawn strictly from the material in the opinion:

The Court accepted the medical evidence (PW9) and Ext. 4 (post mortem certificate) that the deceased had died from homicidal violence due to neck injuries.
Because the occurrence was not witnessed, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence; consequently the Court examined whether all essential links in the chain of circumstances were established to connect the appellants to the death.
The Court evaluated the testimony of PW3 (the deceased's sister) and PW2 (the father). PW3's evidence established only that the deceased left the field in the company of the appellants; she did not witness anything that transpired thereafter. PW2's evidence established discovery of the body on a cot in front of the house and that he gave the fard beyan (Ext. 2).
The Court found the prosecution's account—that the appellants murdered the deceased elsewhere and then brought the dead body to the doorstep—implausible. The Court considered it unlikely that an accused who committed murder would take the risk of placing the dead body where it could be seen by others. From the fact that the body was found lying on a cot at the doorstep, the Court inferred it was more probable that the deceased was cut while he was on the cot in front of his house. On that basis, the Court concluded that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 did not help the prosecution to establish that the appellants committed the murder after taking the deceased from the field.
The Court scrutinised PW2's account that he had apprehended the 1st appellant (Premlal) and that Premlal blamed Dhola (the 2nd appellant). This account was not supported by contemporaneous material in the investigating officer's (PW10) case diary. PW10, when examined, could only say from memory that Premlal must have been produced before him by PW2. The trial Court had found that PW10's evidence was based on memory and lacked supporting entries in the case diary; accordingly the trial court doubted the prosecution's version that Premlal had been kept confined by PW2 and then produced before PW10.
The Court considered the admissibility and weight of the alleged extra‑judicial confession to PW2. It observed that for a statement to be admissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act it must be made without inducement, threat or promise with reference to the charge. PW2 himself stated that Premlal's confession to him was made after persuasion; therefore the Court held that the statement was obtained by inducement and did not fall within Section 24.
Even if the Court were to assume the truth of PW2's version, it reiterated the settled principle that an extra‑judicial confession by one accused admitted in evidence cannot, by itself, be used to conclusively prove the guilt of a co‑accused; it may lend assurance to other circumstances only if those other circumstances exist. Here, the prosecution had failed to establish such corroborating circumstances that would connect the appellants to the murder. In particular, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the alleged statement by the 1st appellant blaming the 2nd appellant had in fact been made.
On these bases—the lacunae in the circumstantial chain, the implausibility of the prosecution's account about the disposition of the dead body, the unsupported and inducement‑tainted extra‑judicial confession, and the lack of corroboration—the Court concluded the prosecution had failed to establish guilt of the appellants.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Appeal allowed; the appellants are acquitted and the conviction and sentence imposed upon them are set aside.

Implications and direct consequences (as stated in the opinion):

The convictions and life sentences of the two appellants were quashed and they were acquitted of the charge.
The appellants were reported to be on bail and were discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
The opinion does not assert or announce any new legal precedent; it rests its decision on the insufficiency of the prosecution's circumstantial case, the unreliability/absence of corroboration for the alleged extra‑judicial confession, and the trial court's findings regarding investigative records. No broader ratio decidendi beyond these conclusions is articulated in the text.

The Court also recorded appreciation for the assistance of the amicus curiae who appeared for the appellants.

Show all summary ...

1. Appellants Prem Lal Mandal and Dhola Mandal were arrayed as A1 and A3 before the Sessions Court along with Bhuneshwar Mandal who was acquitted by the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 79 of 1988/6 of 1989. The appellants on being found guilty Section 302/34 IPC, were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, which is challenged in this appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution can be briefly summarized as follows.

3. PW2 Babulal Mandal is the father of the deceased Anil Mandal. PW3, aged about 7 years at the relevant period, is the sister of the deceased. Two months prior to the date of the incident, a dispute had arisen regarding irrigation of the field between PW2 and Dhola Mandal, the 2nd appellant and at that time Dhola Mandal had threatened PW2 that his son will be killed. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. On 4-3-1988 at about 3:00 p.m PW2 Babulal Mandal went to sell potato at market. PW3 Rinku Kumari and the deceased were asked to go to the field for the purpose of keeping a watch over the crops raised. Appellants 1 and 2 went there and after sending PW3 to the house, took the deceased along with them to witness a movie. The deceased accompanied the appellants and thereafter PW3 returned to the house and informed her father, PW2, that the deceased had gone to cinema along with the appellants. The deceased did not return home on the night. They started searching for the deceased and at about 8 p.m the dead body of the deceased was found on a cot lying in front of his house. Thereafter PW2 gave fard beyan Ext 2 to the police, which was recorded by the investigating officer PW10. The investigation was taken up by PW10 who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report (Ext 6). After inquest, the dead body was sent to the hospital with the requisition to conduct autopsy. The Police Officer also prepared seizure list (Ext 7) attested by the witnesses.

4. On receipt of the requisition, PW9 Dr. Ashok Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon (CAS) attached to the Govt. Hospital, at Godda con ducted autopsy on the dead body of the de ceased and he found the following injuries:

i) “An incised wound on the left side of chin closed to inferior border of jaw 1 ¼″ × ¾″ deep.

ii) A gutter like wound on the anterior aspect of neck encroaching both lateral aspects. Size 4″ × 1 ½″ × 1 ½″. Margin of the wound was incised in the central portion abut k2″ area but margins were lacerated laterally.

iii) On dissection the brain matter was found to be very pale. The neck portion was posteriourly intact but cut interiorly and on sides as described above. The tracheal cartilage, wind pipe and hyoid bone were cut. All the major vessels of neck were cut. Sternocleidomastoid was cut on both sides. Body of third servical vertira was slightly cut. The heart was completely empty with no blood and was small sized. The lungs, liver and spleen were all pale. The stomach contained about 3 of partially digested food materials. The intestine contained ficle matter and Bladder contained about ½ Ozs of lurine.”

5. The doctor issued Ext 4, post mortem certificate, opining that the death is on account of injuries to the neck. In the meantime, PW2 caught hold of the 1st appellant Premlal and on being questioned he informed PW2 that the 2nd appellant committed murder of the deceased. Premlal, 1st appellant, was later produced before the investigating officer, PW10 by PW2.

6. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed against these appellants, and the other accused who was acquitted. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellant, he denied all the incriminating circumstances. They did not examine any witness on their side.

7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as amicus curiae submits that the prosecution having relied upon the circumstantial evidence failed to establish all links in the chain of circumstances to prove that the appellants caused the death of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of PW2 that he caught hold of the 1st appellant Premlal and handed him over to the police is not supported by PW10, the investigating officer and, in fact, the trial Judge also gave a finding against the prosecution on this aspect. The counsel therefore submits that the trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellants.

8. We have heard the counsel for the State and perused the materials on record.

9. Though there can be no dispute as regards the death of the deceased since the same stands established through the evidence of PW9 who conducted post mortem and issued Ext. 4, the post mortem certificate, we hold that the deceased died of homicidal violence, and the prosecution, in our view, failed to establish the case against the appellants.

10. The case of the prosecution is that on account of a quarrel which took place a month prior to the incident between PW2 father of the deceased, and the 2nd appellant, the de ceased Anil Kumar Mandal was murdered after he was taken from the field to a theatre. The prosecution in order to establish the said fact relied on the circumstantial evidence as the occurrence was admittedly not witnessed by any one. Now the question to be decided by us is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the links in the chain of the circumstances for the Court to hold that the appellants are guilty of the murder of the deceased Anil Kumar Mandal.

11. PW3, sister of the deceased came out with a version before the trial Court that while she was at the field with his brother Anil, the deceased, the appellants came there and took him to the theatre and later she informed her father PW2. This evidence of PW3 therefore shows that the deceased left along with the appellant to see the movie and that when the deceased did not return, search was mounted and they found the dead body of the deceased in front of their house on a cot and that he (PW2) gave fard beyan (Ext. 4) to the police. The evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 at best shows that the deceased left from the field in the company of the appellants. But there is no evidence as to what transpired subsequent to that. It is also unbelievable for the Court to accept the prosecution version that after committing the murder of the deceased, the appellants had taken pains to bring the dead body of the de ceased to be placed on a cot near the door of the house of the deceased. No accused who commits murder will take the risk of bringing the dead body to the house of a deceased so that it could be seen by others. The evidence of PW2 and the other witnesses show that the dead body was actually lying on a cot in front of the door-step of the house and this leads us to believe that the deceased must have been cut while he was lying on the cot in front of his house and that he could not have been murdered by the appellants after he was taken from the field as claimed by the prosecution. In this background, we hold that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is of no help to the prosecution. As regards the other evidence as to the apprehension of the 1st appellant by PW2, according to PW2, he apprehended the 1st appellant when he saw him in the village and that after some persuasion 1st appellant told him that the deceased was killed by the 2nd appellant. This evidence of PW2 that he apprehended 1st appellant and that he blamed Dhola, 2nd appellant, for the death of the deceased is not supported by the evidence of the investigating officer PW10. When examined in Court, PW10 stated on the basis of his memory that Premlal Mandal (1st appellant) must have been produced before him by PW2. The trial Court found that PW10 gave evidence from his memory and the said evidence of PW10 was not supported by any material entries made in the case diary by the investigating officer during the course of the investigation.

12. The trial Court in fact went to the extent of holding that there is no evidence to show that the accused Premlal Mandal was kept confined by PW2 after he was apprehended and that later he was produced before the investigating officer. This evidence of PW2 is not supported by PW10, the investigating officer and the finding of the trial Judge therefore shows that the 1st appellant could not have been apprehended by PW2. The alleged statement of 1 st appellant to PW2 does not also fall within the ambit of Section 24 of the Evidence Act, since for any statement to be admissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, it must be a statement made by the person without any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against him. Admittedly, the confession by the 1 st appellant, even according to PW2, was given after persuasion and therefore the statement was obtained by inducement.

13. Even assuming that the statement of the 1st appellant to PW2 is considered to be true, the confession of a co accused can be admitted as an evidence against the other accused to lend assurance to the other circumstances available. We have noted that the prosecution did not let in any evidence to show that the appellants caused death of the deceased and therefore the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the first appellant to PW2 cannot be put against the 2nd appellant Dhola Mandal. Therefore, we find that the prosecution not only did not establish all the links in the chain of the circumstances, but failed to prove that the 1st appellant made statement to PW2 blaming 2nd appellant for murder of the deceased. In view of the discussions above, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to acquittal.

14. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow this appeal and acquit the appellants of the charge setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants.

15. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds.

16. We appreciate and put on record the assistance rendered by the learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae during the course of the hearing of this appeal.

17. Appeal allowed.