"High Court Acquits Two Men in 1992 Kidnapping and Murder Case: Legal Scrutiny on Evidence and Witness Credibility"

 


Introduction

This case revolves around a criminal appeal challenging the conviction of two individuals, Fagu Mushahar and Govind Mahto, who were sentenced to life imprisonment by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha (West Champaran), in connection with a 1992 kidnapping and murder case. The appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 364, 201, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Patna High Court reviewed the evidence and found significant discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, leading to their acquittal.

Background of the Case

The case originated from the alleged abduction and murder of Bhimal Mushahar, a village chowkidar. According to the First Information Report (FIR), lodged on June 8, 1992, by Bhutahi Devi, the wife of the deceased, a group of armed men forcibly took her husband away from their home at around 3:00 AM. She identified some of the men but was unable to name them initially.

Following an investigation, eight people, including the appellants, were charged under multiple sections of the IPC. The trial initially concluded with the conviction of five accused, while the trial of the absconding accused was separated. Years later, after their arrest, Fagu Mushahar and Govind Mahto faced trial, which ultimately resulted in their conviction in 2016.

Prosecution’s Case

  1. Eyewitness Testimony: The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of Bhutahi Devi (P.W.1) and Timal Mushahar (P.W.2), the deceased's wife and brother, respectively. They claimed to have seen the accused among the men who kidnapped Bhimal Mushahar.

  2. Confessional Statement of Co-Accused: A key piece of evidence was a confessional statement by another accused, Ravindra Mahto, recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. He alleged that he was forced to accompany the main accused, including Fagu Mushahar and Govind Mahto, during the abduction and killing of Bhimal Mushahar.

  3. Motive: The prosecution argued that the accused had prior enmity with the deceased due to a land dispute involving 18 dhurs of land.

Defense Arguments

  1. Inconsistent Testimonies: The defense pointed out contradictions in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. While they identified the accused in court, they initially told the police that the abductors were unknown.

  2. No Test Identification Parade (TIP): The accused were not subjected to a TIP, which is crucial for verifying identification in cases where the accused were not initially named.

  3. Lack of Direct Evidence: No physical evidence, such as the recovery of the deceased’s body or forensic proof, linked the appellants to the crime.

  4. Non-Examination of Investigating Officer: The trial court failed to call the investigating officer as a witness, which weakened the prosecution’s case by preventing cross-examination on procedural lapses.

High Court’s Observations

  1. Unreliable Witness Testimonies: The court found that P.W.1 and P.W.2’s testimonies were unreliable, as they had initially told the police that the abductors were unknown but later identified the accused in court after several years.

  2. Confessional Statement Not Admissible: The court ruled that the confessional statement of co-accused Ravindra Mahto could not be used as substantive evidence against the appellants, as they had not confessed themselves.

  3. Failure of Investigation: The absence of a Test Identification Parade and the failure to examine the investigating officer created significant gaps in the prosecution’s case.

  4. Long Gap Between Incident and Arrest: The accused were arrested more than ten years after the incident, raising doubts about the reliability of eyewitness identification.

Final Judgment

  • The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

  • Fagu Mushahar and Govind Mahto were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released immediately unless they were required in any other case.

  • The judgment emphasized the need for proper identification procedures and adherence to due process in criminal trials.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

  1. Eyewitness Testimony Must Be Consistent: Courts place high importance on witness credibility. Any inconsistencies can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case.

  2. Test Identification Parade is Crucial: In cases where accused are unnamed in the FIR, a TIP helps establish identification beyond doubt.

  3. Investigating Officer’s Role is Critical: The failure to examine the investigating officer can deprive the defense of a fair opportunity to challenge procedural lapses.

  4. Confessions of Co-Accused Are Not Enough: Unless an accused makes a direct confession, statements of co-accused cannot be the sole basis for conviction.

  5. Judicial Oversight on Procedural Lapses: The case highlights how appellate courts act as safeguards against wrongful convictions based on inadequate investigations.

Conclusion

The Patna High Court’s ruling in this case reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in criminal trials. By setting aside a conviction based on unreliable evidence, the court ensured that justice was served. The case serves as a critical reminder that adherence to due process and the proper collection of evidence are essential in securing lawful convictions.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM3NzIjMjAxNiMxI04=-s--am1--6F2iPXXY4=