The High Court's website does provide details about what happened in this case in the High Court during August 1999-April 2025. Its silence regarding such delay in adjudication is intriguing and inexplicable.
In The State of Bihar vs. SK. Manso @ Mansoor & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and Sunil Dutta Mishra delivered a 25-page long judgement upholding the judgment of acquittal dated May 17, 1999 passed by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial of 1992, whereby the Trial Court had acquitted SK. Manso @Mansoor, SK. Jahir, SK. Tahir and Md. Gulam Rasool, all the 4 respondents/accused of all the charges levelled against them. The causelist showed name of Ganesh Prasad Jayaswal as the petitioner's counsel and Nageshwar Prasad as the APP. But the judgement shows name of Dilip Kumar Sinha as the APP but does not show any name of the counsel on behalf of the respondents. He concluded: "we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment. We are of the view that the Trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment."
The judgement reads: "In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no interference is required in the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court." The High Court dismissed the State government's appeal of the year 1999 which was filed on August 18, 1999 and registered on the same day. It was listed for hearing before Justice Pancholi bench since April 21, 2025.
The informant Mosmat Bibi Jaibunissa stated in her fardbeyan recorded on August 14, 1987 at around 10:00 a.m. at Government Hospital, Ghoraiya that, in the morning of that day at around 07:00 a.m., her son Sheikh Mansoor and Sheikh Nasir along with ploughman Sheikh Ramjani were ploughing her field situated at the south-west corner of village. Then, at that time, Sheikh Manso of her village came with a gandasa, Sheikh Jahoor with spear, Sheikh Rasool with a bana and Sheikh Tahir with a lathi in their hands to the field abusing and told them to stop ploughing, else they won’t let them go alive. The above mentioned four accused persons surrounded them and started assaulting. Her ploughman Sheikh Ramjani was hit with a spear by Sheikh Jahir and by gandasa wielded by Sheikh Mansi. Sheikh Rasool hit her on her head with bana and when her son tried to save her, he was hit on his head by Sheikh Tahir with a lathi. When Ramjani fell down, all the four accused persons started hitting him due to which he fell unconscious there. Besides this, her two sons, Sheikh Ramjani and the ploughmen were beaten and injured by them. When they raised alarm, nearby residents, namely Sheikh Haviv, Sheikh Badruddin, Sheikh Nazimuddin etc. came running and all the four accused persons ran away. Thereafter, she along with her other companions brought Sheikh Ramjani on a cot to the Government Hospital, Dhoraiya since Ramjani’s condition was very bad. The above mentioned persons had beaten him with an intention to kill him. Manso told in an abusive tone that he should not be spared alive. She took Ramjani to Hospital where she was advised to take him to B.M.C.H., Bhagalpur. She got him seated in a Maxi and then took him to Bhagalpur. After that, she along with other injured namely Md. Kalimuddin, Md. Shamim and her two sons went for treatment where she gave her statement. The reason for the incident is that the above mentioned accused persons claim the field which she was ploughing to be theirs.
Justice Pancholi observed:"it is also required to be observed that the informant and the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the manner in which the occurrence took place. From the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, it has been revealed that in the incident in question, the accused persons have also sustained injury and, in fact, the counter-case has been filed by the accused side against the informant and the other injured witnesses. However, it is required to be observed at this stage that the prosecution has failed to bring on record the nature of injuries sustained by the accused persons in the incident in question. It is well settled that it is the duty of the prosecution to explain the injury sustained by the accused.
He noted: "....the prosecution has failed to examine the Investigating Officer, who has carried out the investigation. The Trial Court has specifically observed in the impugned judgment that because of the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, in the present case, serious prejudice has been caused to the defence. We are of the view that the Trial Court is right in observing the said aspect. As observed hereinabove, from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, it transpires that the accused persons have sustained injury in the incident in question and, therefore, counter-case has been filed. Some of the prosecution witnesses were arrested in connection with the counter-case. Thus, because of the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, in the present case, the defence has lost the opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer. We are also of the view that serious prejudice has been caused to the defence because of the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and which can be considered as fatal." He pointed out that...the prosecution has failed to examine the Doctor, who had given the treatment to the injured witnesses...."
Justice Pancholi underlined that "....there is no recovery or discovery of the weapons which have been allegedly used in commission of the crime. Thus, there is no recovery or discovery from the accused."
Justice Pancholi relied on Para-42 of the Supreme Court's decision in he decision in Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415. The Court has laid down the principle regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. The Court observed:“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
Justice Pancholi also relied on Para-22 of the Supreme Court's decision in Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 605. The Court observed: “22. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] has considered various earlier judgments on the scope of interference in a case of acquittal. It held that there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence that is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the court. It has been further held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
Drawing on these decisions, Justice Pancholi concluded:"it can be said that Appellant Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding recorded by the Trial Court." It is the 22nd judgement of the year authored by Justice Pancholi.
Justice Pancholi's 21st judgment of 2025 set aside judgment by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nawada
His 34-page long 21st judgement dated June 18, 2025 was delivered in Madhav Kumar @ Madhav Singh vs. The State Of Bihar (2025), wherein the he quashed and set aside the impugned common judgment of conviction dated May 29, 2018 and order of sentence dated June 5, 2018, passed in a Sessions Trial No. of 2016 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nawada. The case had arisen out of Pakribarawan P.S. case of 2016.
The Trial Court had convicted appellants Gopal Singh and Madhav Kumar for committing the offence punishable under Sections- 302 of I.P.C. The appellants Bhopal Singh and Chandan Singh were also been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section-341 and 302/34 of I.P.C. The appellants Gopal Singh and Madhav Kumar were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section-302 of I.P.C. The appellants Bhopal Singh and Chandan Singh were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section-302/34 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Section-341 of I.P.C.
The P.W. 3 Ramendra Prasad Singh, the informant gave his written report to S.H.O wherein he stated that at about 05:45 p.m. on March 24, 2016, the Holi festival day., exchange of abuses took place between his son Rahul Kumar on one side and his full brother Gopal Singh and nephew Madhav Singh on the other. Thereafter, at about 06:45 p.m., his son was coming to the lane from the southern side. As soon as he reached near the house of Haridwar Singh, accused Gopal Singh, Madhav Singh, armed with a spear and Bhopal Singh and Chandan Kumar came in front of the house of Haridwar Singh and Bhopal Singh and Chandan Singh caught hold of his son and Gopal Singh and Madhav Kumar assaulted him with Bhala (spear) and injured him grievously. On commotion, his daughter Sonam Kumari shouted upon which his wife and village people came there and seeing them the miscreants fled away. When they went nearer, they saw grievous injuries on both the sides of chest, navel and scrotum of his son, caused by spear out of which profuse blood was oozing and his son was writhing in pain. By the time they could manage a vehicle to rush him to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.
As the appeals arose out of the common judgment and order, advocates appearing for the parties had jointly prayed that all these appeals be heard together and be disposed of by a common judgment.
Justice Pancholi recorded that from the written report, it transpired that the informant was not an eye-witness to the occurrence in question and daughter of the informant, namely, Sonam Kumari, PW2 was projected as an eye-witness. The case of the prosecution rested mainly upon her deposition. She is sister of the deceased and is an interested and related witness. The formal F.I.R. was registered at 18.45 hours on March 24, 2016 and the F.I.R. was received by the concerned Magistrate Court on March 30, 2016. "Thus, there is a gross delay in sending the F.I.R. to the concerned Magistrate Court for which the prosecution has failed to give any reasonable explanation." Notably, at another place, the judgement recorded that the formal F.I.R. was registered on march 24, 2016 at 23:30 hours.
Justice Pancholi also noted that from the deposition given by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, who were near relatives of the deceased, it transpires that there were major contradictions and improvement in their version. All the these witnesses had deposed before the Court that all the four accused together flung the deceased on the ground. However, no such allegation was levelled against the accused in the written report given by P.W. 3, informant.
He recorded that as per the case of P.Ws. 1 to 3, the deceased sustained grievous spear injuries on both sides of his chest. He also sustained injuries on his navel and scrotum. But the deposition of P.W. 6, Dr. Bipin Kumar Chaudhary, who had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased, it emerged that injury Nos. 1 and 2 are incised wound injuries, whereas injury Nos. 3 and 4 are bruises. During cross-examination, this witness specifically stated that, except these two injuries mentioned by him in the examination-in-chief, he did not find any other injury either on the navel or the scrotum of the dead body. Thus, we are of the view that the medical evidence does not support the version given by the prosecution-witnesses, namely P.Ws. 1 to 3. PW2, Sonam Kumari's deposition also does not match with the medical report which revealed that no such injuries were found on the navel or scrotum of the dead body as was claimed by her. He also recorded that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses. He took note of the fact that from the version of the prosecution-witness, i.e. the I.O., it was revealed that Bhopal and Chandan, the two accused, although they were not present at the scene, they were falsely implicated. The P.W. 3, informant, who is the father of the deceased drafted the written report
immediately at the place of occurrence. During cross-examination, he stated that he had arranged the paper for preparing the report from a shop, but he does not want to disclose the name of the person who brought the paper from the shop. Justice Pancholi observed that if P.W. 3, informant, had already disclosed the names of the assailants and the manner in which the occurrence took place to the police on telephone, there was no question of giving the written report to the police. He pointed out from the record that there was discrepancy with regard to the time of preparing the inquest report. The counsel for the appellants stated that there is overwriting in Column Nos. 1 and 3 of the inquest report from which it can be said that prosecution has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the correct version.
The judgement reads: "We have also gone through the inquest report produced before the trial court. It appears that there is overwriting at two places, i.e. Column Nos. 1 and 3. It would further reveal from the evidence that the investigating agency has failed to recover/discover the weapons/spears with which assaults were made. Further, the prosecution did not examine A.S.I. Anil Prasad who has prepared the inquest report. Similarly, prosecution did not examine police officer Ramshankar Dubey who was sent by the S.H.O. (P.W. 5) to the place of occurrence."
Justice Pancholi acquitted the appellants of the charges levelled against them by
the Trial Court. The appellant Madhav Kumar@ Madhav Singh and appellant
Gopal Singh were in custody. They were directed to be released from jail
custody forthwith. The appellants Bhopal Singh and Chandan Singh
@Chandan Kumar (in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 784 of 2018) were on bail. They
were discharged from the liabilities of their bail-bonds.
No comments:
Post a Comment