In Manindra Tiwary @ Munna Tiwary vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Ashok Kumar Pandey delivered a 84-page long judgement dated November 24, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"....we find that the finding of conviction recorded by the Ld. Trial Judge, in our opinion is not sustainable and requires interference. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.1994 and 30.11.1994 respectively, passed by the Ld. Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 618 of 1992/37 of 1994 (arising out of Govindganj (Malahi) Police Station Case No. 18 of 1992) are set aside. The appellants of the aforesaid appeal are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 74. The appellants of both the aforesaid appeals are on bail, hence they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 75. Consequently, the aforesaid appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 598 of 1994 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1 of 1995 stand allowed." The case was adjudicated along with Satyendra Mani Tripathi & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2025). The judgement was authored by Justice Shah.
Justice Shah observed:"...we find that there is irreconcilable conflict between the oral and the medical evidence and the medical evidence completely rules out all possibility of the injuries taking place in the manner alleged, hence the same would warrant discarding not only the testimony of the eye witnesses but also the case of the prosecution."
Both the appeals were filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.1994 and 30.11.1994 respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No. 618 of 1992 / 37 of 1994 (arising out of Govindganj (Malahi) Police Station Case No. 18 of 1992) by the learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, hence the same were disposed off by the common judgment and order.
By the said judgment dated 29.11.1994, the appellants of the two appeals were convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as far as the appellants of the second case were concerned, they were also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. By the order of sentence dated 30.11.1994, the appellants of the aforesaid two appeals have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and as far as the appellants of the second case were concerned, they were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
As per the fardbeyan of the informant Jaikant Mani Tripathi (PW-12), recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, namely M. S. Khan (PW-13), Officer-in-Charge, Malahi Police Station on 04.02.1992 at 00:30 a.m. at the bathan of Ambika Sah of village Nagdaha is that in the night at about 09:00 p.m. he along with his deceased brother Deo Saran Mani Tripathi were going for irrigating their field towards the eastern-southern side of their house and when they reached south of Harijan Toli, situated near Primary School, Nagdaha some people had surrounded them, whereupon his deceased brother, in the light of the torch, which he was holding in his hand, had recognized the co-villagers, namely Satyendra Mani Tripathi, Kamendra Mani Tripathi and Manoj Tiwary, who were holding rifle and double barrel gun respectively in their hands, whereupon the deceased brother of the informant asked them as to why they were surrounded them, upon which Satyendra Mani Tripathi (appellant no.1 of the second case) said that he was the person who had accumulated co-villagers, got their signatures and had got them to depose against them, hence they would kill him. Thereafter, both the brothers had ran towards the northern side near Nagdaha Giri tola but the said accused persons had fired from their rifle/gun indiscriminately resulting in the brother of the informant falling on the road on the southern side of Nagdaha Giri tola on account of being hit by gun shots, whereafter the informant while raising hulla had ran towards Giri tola and on hearing his hulla (alarm) as also upon hearing the sound of gunshot firing, Bhibhikhan Giri (P.W. 3), Ram Dekhan Giri (P.W. 5), Vijay Kant Giri (P.W. 7) and Ramraj Giri (P.W. 4) as also many other persons had arrived there, who had seen the accused persons running away, whereupon they had chased them but they managed to flee away towards the village. The informant had then gone near his brother Deo Saran Mani Tripathi, who had fallen on the ground and had found him to be dead as also he was smeared with blood. He had been hit by gun shots on his head, back, neck and chest. The informant has further stated that the reason for the said occurrence is that Satyendra Mani Tripathi (appellant no.1 of the second case) is Chairman of Nagdaha Cooperative Society and he has withdrawn Rs. 4-5 lacs belonging to him and other villagers, which was being opposed to by his brother, who had also got a representation filed on behalf of the villagers as also had got the villagers to depose against him. The fardbeyan of the informant was signed by Bachandeo Giri and Bipin Giri (P.W. 10) as witnesses to the same.
Taking into account an overall perspective of the entire case, emerging out of the totality of the facts and circumstance, and considering the evidence which has been brought on record to prove the allegations levelled against the appellants, Justice Shah also observed: "we find that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts the commission of offence by the appellants. Therefore, we find that the Ld. Trial Judge has committed a gross error in holding that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both oral and documentary as well as materials available on record definitely go to prove the offence under Section 302/34, qua the aforesaid appellants of both the aforesaid Appeals as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act qua the appellants of the second case. Thus, in the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove and for the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that there are compelling reasons in the present case which necessitates that the appellants of the aforesaid appeals be given the benefit of doubt."
No comments:
Post a Comment