- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Murari Thakur And Another v. State Of Bihar .
Factual and Procedural Background
On 26 August 1998 at approximately 4 p.m., Bal Krishna Mishra (about 14 years old) was murdered in a sugarcane field. Witness Dhaneshwar Mishra observed three individuals—Murari Thakur, Sudhir Thakur, and Sunil Kumar—overpowering the victim. Murari held the victim’s legs, Sudhir sat on his back restraining his hands, and Sunil cut his neck with a sharp-edged weapon. Dhaneshwar raised an alarm; the assailants fled, and several villagers arrived at the scene.
The victim’s father, Bhuneshwar Mishra, returned home from Sitamarhi at 8 p.m. and learned of the murder. Around 1:30 a.m. on 27 August 1998, the police recorded his fardbeyan and registered an offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet; the Sessions Court convicted all three accused. The Patna High Court affirmed the conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 2001 on 12 January 2005. The present appeal before the Supreme Court challenges that affirmation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellants could belatedly claim the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (as amended in 2006).
- Whether the alleged delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) was fatal to the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC was sustainable on the evidence adduced.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The appellants should be treated as juveniles under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (as amended in 2006), entitling them to special procedural and sentencing benefits.
- The FIR was lodged with undue delay, casting serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution’s version.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Juvenile Justice claim: The Court held that the issue was not raised before either the trial court or the High Court and therefore could not be entertained for the first time at the Supreme Court stage. Moreover, determining juvenile status is a factual question requiring evidence and cross-examination, which were absent.
Alleged delay in filing the FIR: The Court found no undue delay. The victim’s father was away from home; heavy rains and flooding impeded immediate reporting; and the investigating officer reached the village and recorded the statement by 1:30 a.m. These facts rendered the lapse permissible and non-prejudicial.
Sustainability of conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC: Both lower courts had found that the appellants actively restrained the victim while a co-accused cut his neck, establishing common intention. The Supreme Court concurred that Section 34 applied, affirming collective liability for murder.
Holding and Implications
Holding: Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences under Sections 302/34 IPC upheld.
Implications: The decision leaves the trial court’s life-sentence (or other sentence imposed) intact for the appellants. The judgment reaffirms that belated juvenile claims and minor delays in lodging an FIR will not vitiate a conviction when the factual matrix and evidence are otherwise compelling. No new legal precedent was established beyond the case-specific application of settled principles.
Markandey Katju, J.— This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12-1-2005 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 2001. By that judgment the conviction of the appellants by the trial court under Sections 302/34 IPC was upheld.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 26-8-1998 at about 3 p.m Dhaneshwar Mishra (PW 4), the elder brother of the first informant, Bhuneshwar Mishra was going for grazing his buffalo when he saw his deceased nephew, Bal Krishna Mishra with the appellants going across the river in parti land. When Dhaneshwar Mishra enquired from them where they were going, they all replied that they were on a stroll and they went towards east of the river. Dhaneshwar Mishra also went across the river with his buffalo. After some time at about 4 p.m he heard the sound of gasping from the other side of a field of sugarcane and leaving his buffalo, he went towards the sugarcane field and he found that on a ridge under the tree of jamun (rose apple), appellant, Murari Thakur had caught hold of the legs of the deceased, appellant, Sudhir Thakur was sitting on the back of the deceased holding both his hands, and the third accused, Sunil Kumar (who is not before us) after pressing the neck of the deceased was cutting it with a sharp-edged weapon. Dhaneshwar Mishra saw this incident from a distance of ten laggis, and he ran raising hulla and the appellants and Sunil Kumar fled away towards west of the sugarcane field. When Dhaneshwar Mishra reached the place, he found that all the three appellants had already committed the murder of the deceased by cutting his neck. On hulla of Dhaneshwar Mishra, Devendra Singh (PW 6), Kishore Jha (PW 2), Baleshwar Mishra (PW 3), Paras Nath Mishra (PW 7) and a number of other persons came there and they saw the dead body of the deceased. About motive of the occurrence, the case of the prosecution is that twelve days before the occurrence, some altercation had taken place with appellant Sunil Kumar.
3. On the date of the occurrence at about 8 p.m when the informant Bhuneshwar Mishra (PW 8), the father of the deceased came to his house from Sitamarhi, he came to know that his son had been killed and Dhaneshwar Mishra told him about the entire incident. On the night between 26-8-1998 and 27-8-1998 at about 1.30 hrs, fardbeyan of the first informant was recorded at the place of the occurrence and a case under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 was registered against all the three appellants. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against them under the same heading. Cognizance of the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session where after trial, the appellants were held guilty and were convicted and sentenced, as stated above.
4. Against the judgment of the trial court, the appellants filed an appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed and hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants firstly submitted that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as amended by the Amendment of 2006. We are of the opinion that this point cannot be raised at this stage because neither was it taken before the trial court nor before the High Court. Even otherwise, we do not find any merit in the said contention. The question of age of the appellant-accused is a question of fact on which evidence, cross-examination, etc. is required and, therefore, it cannot be allowed to be taken up at this late stage. Hence, we reject this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that there was delay in filing the FIR. We are of the opinion that there is no such delay which can be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. The occurrence took place on 26-8-1998 at 4 p.m The first informant, the father of the deceased, Bhuneshwar Mishra (PW 8) was at Sitamarhi and returned home at 8 p.m when he came to know from his brother Dhaneshwar Mishra that his minor son Bal Krishna Mishra aged about 14 years had been murdered. After Bhuneshwar Mishra learnt about this from his brother Dhaneshwar Mishra (PW 4), then he went and lodged the FIR. R.K Tiwari (PW 11), the investigating officer, has stated in his evidence that it was rainy season and there was flood in the area and he reached the place of the occurrence on the night of 26-8-1998/27-8-1998 at about 1.30 a.m and recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was no such fatal delay in lodging the FIR.
7. We agree with the view taken by the High Court and the trial court that the accused had committed murder of deceased Bal Krishna Mishra after overpowering him in furtherance of their common intention on 26-8-1998 at 4 p.m No doubt it was Sunil Kumar, who is not before us, who cut the neck of the deceased but the appellants before us (Murari Thakur and Sudhir Thakur) also participated in the murder. Murari Thakur had caught the legs of the deceased and Sudhir Thakur sat on the back of the deceased at the time of commission of this murder. Hence, Section 34 IPC is clearly applicable in this case.
8. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal and hence it is dismissed.
Alert