Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Patna, Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey has upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence awarded to two accused for the murder of three members of their family in a dispute arising from competing claims over land and cultivation. The Court rejected the challenge to the verdict and, on the connected death reference, affirmed that the case warranted capital punishment. The judgment comprises two concurring opinions. While Justice Prasad agreed with the trial court’s assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors in deciding the sentence, Justice Pandey concurred with that conclusion and recorded additional observations, drawing on the Mahabharata’s account of conflict over land and power to support punishment for the aggressors’ crime.

The proceedings arose from a death reference and a connected criminal appeal concerning the murder of three male members of the same family following a land dispute in a village within Rohtas district. The prosecution case originated from a fardbeyan recorded on the night of the incident, alleging that a quarrel over cultivation of disputed land escalated into a violent attack. According to the prosecution, the accused persons first assaulted the victims with lathi and fists and later chased them into a common residential house, where they inflicted multiple fatal injuries using swords.

Also Read: Release On Probation Does Not Erase Conviction Stigma In Departmental Proceedings: Supreme Court

The informant, widow of one of the deceased, claimed to be an eyewitness and described the sequence of events leading to the deaths. Three postmortem reports, seizure of blood-stained weapons, forensic evidence, and eyewitness testimony formed the evidentiary basis of the prosecution. The accused denied the allegations, questioned the timing and genuineness of the FIR, challenged the credibility of witnesses, alleged suppression of the earliest version, and contended that medical evidence did not support the prosecution narrative. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and awarded the death penalty, prompting confirmation proceedings before the High Court along with the criminal appeal.

The Court stated, “It is well settled that a mere delay in lodging of the FIR cannot be a ground to throw away the prosecution case… The credibility of the prosecution witnesses would be required to be looked into.” It further noted the situation at the spot and the role of the officer who prepared the inquest, stating, “One can imagine the circumstances present on the spot where three dead bodies were lying… Bimlesh Kumar, ASI, who prepared the inquest report of the deceased persons has not been made a charge-sheet witness, therefore, he has not been examined by the prosecution. Only he could have been in a position to explain as to why he did not record the fardbeyan of PW-4 at the time of preparation of the inquest report.”

While dealing with the defence contention that the earliest version was suppressed, the Court recorded gaps in the investigation connected with the fardbeyan, stating, “The fardbeyan was recorded by ASI Bimelsh Kumar… the statement of this ASI was not recorded by the I.O. and he has not been made a charge-sheet witness.” The Court then recorded, “The submission of learned senior counsel for the informant and learned Amicus Curiae that the I.O. was acting designedly with an intention to do something which may result into giving benefit of doubt to the accused, is a valid submission.”

On the defence objection that the investigating officer did not verify land ownership, the judgment recorded, “The I.O. (PW-5) has stated in his evidence… that he did not investigate about the ownership, area and location of the said land.”

On how such lapses were to be approached while appreciating evidence, the judgment recorded the submission based on Supreme Court precedent, “if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency, negligently or otherwise, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not.” It also recorded, “the contaminated conduct of officials should not stand in the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts, otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party.”

On appraisal of witness testimony, the Court stated, “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) principle is foreign to our criminal law jurisprudence… ‘….. A part statement of a witness can be believed even though some part of the statement may not be relied upon by the Court….’”

On medical evidence and the weapon, the Court recorded, “A lacerated wound may occur from a sword… often with a crushing or stretching action… and can result from heavy blows or dragging the blade… A heavy blow or dragging a sharp edge across skin can stretch and tear the tissue.” It further concluded, “A close perusal of the findings recorded by PW-6 in the postmortem reports would show that the kind of injuries found on the persons of the deceased corresponds to the nature of weapon i.e. sword (ryokj). I do not have any iota of doubt that the prosecution case with respect to the weapon of crime has also been proved beyond all reasonable doubts.”

On overall proof of guilt, the Court held, “The result of overall analysis of the entire materials which I have discussed hereinabove is that the prosecution has fully proved its’ case beyond all reasonable doubts… The deceased persons were attacked by a deadly weapon like talwar repeatedly by the accused persons due to an enmity on account of a land dispute.” It added, “the defence has not suggested that these appellants were not present in the house on the date and time of the occurrence or they did not possess the talwar which was the weapon of crime and seized from their house.”

On sentence, Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad recorded, “the learned trial court has considered this aspect… in detail… the postmortem report speaks the story of brutality/savagery adopted by the convicts.” He also recorded, “Consequent upon the demise of all three male members of the family, a huge dark hole has been created… We should not loose sight of the permanent scar which has been left in the mind and soul of the three women…” Finally, he concluded, “I, therefore, confirm the death sentence… and dismiss the… appeal…”

In the concurring opinion, Justice Sourendra Pandey recorded, “I am reminded of the great epic “Mahabharat”… Mahabharat culminates with a message that aggressors meet a tragic end as divine punishment for their “adharm”…” He added, “The story of Mahabharat leads us to one and only one conclusion that the appellants, who were the aggressors should be punished for their sin/crime… therefore I uphold the conviction… I confirm the sentence imposed by the learned trial court.”

Also Read: Without Shared Residence Or Meaningful Interaction, Cruelty Allegations Against In-Laws Become Inherently Improbable: Patna High Court

The Court directed that “there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction dated 02.05.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2022 arising out of Darihat P.S. Case No. 111 of 2021” and accordingly affirmed the conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

“The order of sentence dated 09.05.2024 awarding death penalty to the appellants is affirmed” and that “the Death Reference No. 2 of 2024 is answered in the affirmative. The Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 691 of 2024 preferred by the appellants is dismissed”.

With respect to victim compensation, the Court directed that “the direction of the learned trial court to the District Legal Services Authority, Rohtas, Sasaram for award of maximum compensation under the scheme to each of the three widows is affirmed” and that “the compensation must be paid, if not already paid, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners / State: Mr. Anil Singh, Amicus Curiae; Mr. Manoj Kumar No.1, Advocate; Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Additional Public Prosecutor

For the Appellants: Mr. Pratik Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Vatsal Vishal, Advocate; Mr. Raushan Kumar, Advocate

For the Informant: Mr. Ansul, Senior Advocate; Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Eashiita Raj, Advocate; Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Sada Nan Roy, Advocate

Case Title: The State of Bihar v. Aman Singh & Anr.

Case Numbers: Death Reference No. 2 of 2024; Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 691 of 2024

Bench: Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Justice Sourendra Pandey