The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday acquitted ten individuals convicted for a double murder that occurred during a land dispute in Bihar in 1988, citing a “tainted investigation” and “inextricably mixed up” evidence that failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan overturned the concurrent convictions by the Trial Court and the Patna High Court, emphasizing the need for caution when convicting individuals based on general allegations in cases involving large mobs.
The court held that the First Information Report (FIR) was recorded after undue deliberation and could not be considered the first information, rendering the subsequent investigation unreliable. Furthermore, the testimonies of injured eyewitnesses were found to be riddled with material contradictions and inconsistent with medical evidence.
Background of the Case
The case originates from an incident on November 20, 1988, in the jurisdiction of Ajam Nagar Police Station, Katihar district. According to the prosecution, a dispute over government-allotted agricultural land led to a violent clash. The informant, Jagdish Mahato (PW-20), stated that a mob of 400-500 people, armed with guns, pistols, spears, and other lethal weapons, attacked him and his brother, Meghu Mahato.
In the ensuing violence, Meghu Mahato and another villager, Sarjug Mahato, were shot dead. Five other individuals, including the informant Jagdish Mahato, sustained serious injuries. The FIR, registered based on Jagdish Mahato’s statement recorded at a hospital, named 72 individuals as accused. Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed against 24 persons.
The Trial Court in 1990 convicted 21 of the accused for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Patna High Court in 2013 upheld the conviction of 11 individuals while acquitting seven. The present appeals before the Supreme Court were filed by the remaining convicts.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellants’ counsel argued that the FIR was ante-timed and an afterthought, pointing to witness statements which indicated that the police had received information about the incident long before the informant’s statement was officially recorded. They highlighted major contradictions in the testimonies of eyewitnesses and discrepancies between the alleged weapons used and the injuries documented in medical reports. It was contended that in a large crowd, mere presence does not establish membership of an unlawful assembly with a shared common object.
The State of Bihar countered that the appellants were identified by injured witnesses who had assigned specific roles to them. The State argued that the common object of the unlawful assembly was evident from the deadly weapons they carried and their collective actions. It was submitted that minor inconsistencies in witness accounts are natural in a chaotic incident and do not discredit the core prosecution case.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court conducted a meticulous re-appreciation of the evidence and found serious flaws in the prosecution’s case.
1. On the Authenticity of the FIR: The bench concluded that the statement of Jagdish Mahato (PW-20) could not be treated as the FIR. The court noted that testimonies of other witnesses (PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-8) revealed that the police had arrived at the scene or been informed about the cognizable offence much earlier. The court observed, “From the foregoing, it appears that the statement of the PW-20 could not have been treated as the FIR, since the first information about the occurrence had already reached the police prior to its recording of statements at the hospital. Resultantly, the statement of PW-20 becomes a police statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.” Citing precedent, the court held that such a delay and deliberation “tainted” the entire investigation.
2. On Unreliable Witness Testimonies: The court found the evidence of the five injured eyewitnesses to be unreliable and marred by “material inconsistencies and embellishments striking at the root of the matter.”
- The informant, Jagdish Mahato (PW-20), had claimed in the FIR that he named 41 assailants based on information provided by other injured witnesses. However, in court, he admitted to falling unconscious after the initial assault. Furthermore, another witness (PW-3) flatly denied having provided any such list of names to him.
- The testimony of Dasu Mahto (PW-3), who claimed he was assaulted by an accused with a gandasa on his leg, was contradicted by the medical evidence, which showed no such injury.
- Similarly, Faiju Mahto (PW-5) claimed he was assaulted with lathis, but his medical report only showed incised (sharp-cut) wounds.
The court stated, “The oral testimonies of the witnesses neither corroborate each other nor align with the medical records. The various contradictions in the form of material omissions go to the root of the matter.”
3. On the Rule of Prudence and Section 149 IPC: The court invoked the “rule of prudence” established in cases like Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which mandates caution when convicting a large number of persons based on general evidence. The judgment distinguished between active members of an unlawful assembly and “innocent bystanders.” It held that the prosecution must establish through credible evidence that each accused shared the common object of the assembly.
Finding the evidence against the appellants to be vague and contradictory, the court concluded that their conviction could not be sustained. “Where the grain cannot be separated from the chaff because the grain and the chaff are so inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation the Court would have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution… then this principle will not apply,” the bench remarked, quoting a previous decision.
Decision
Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The impugned judgment of the Patna High Court was set aside, and the ten appellants—Sattar, Udua, Razaque, Md. Mashiyat, Allauddin @ Allu, Hoda, Salahuddin @ Sallu, Md. Mojib @ Mujiya, Md. Mister, and Zainul—were acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds were discharged.
