"Justice or Doubt? Understanding the Acquittal in a 2007 Murder Case"

 


Introduction

This case revolves around an appeal in the Patna High Court regarding a criminal trial where multiple accused were acquitted due to lack of conclusive evidence. The case originates from an incident in 2007 where a man was allegedly kidnapped and later found dead. The appellant, the deceased’s brother, sought justice, claiming the accused were responsible. However, the trial court ruled otherwise, leading to this appeal.

Background of the Case

  • Incident Date: October 24, 2007

  • Location: Sheikh Mohammadpur, Khusrupur, Patna

  • Key Individuals:

    • Appellant: Sugreev Mahto (brother of the deceased)

    • Accused: Suresh Paswan, Ram Nandan Mahto, Ram Sakal Paswan, and Krishna Mahto

    • Trial Court: Additional Sessions Judge-V, Patna City

The case began when Sugreev Mahto filed a report stating that his younger brother was last seen with the accused on the night of the incident. He claimed that his brother was invited by Ram Nandan Mahto for a meal, which included alcohol. After the meal, the deceased was seen heading towards a field, followed by the accused. He never returned home, and his body was found later.

Legal Charges & Trial Proceedings

The accused were charged under:

  • Section 302/34 IPC (Murder with common intention)

  • Section 364/34 IPC (Kidnapping with common intention)

The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, with eight witnesses testifying. The main argument was that the deceased was last seen with the accused, who were under an obligation to explain what happened to him.

However, the trial court found gaps in the evidence. The main reasons for acquittal were:

  1. Break in the Chain of Circumstances: The court referred to a Supreme Court ruling, stating that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain proving guilt beyond doubt. Here, the evidence was insufficient.

  2. Time Gap Between Incidents: Witnesses stated that the accused followed the deceased 10-20 minutes after he left. The court deemed this time gap sufficient to create reasonable doubt.

  3. Lack of Key Details in the FIR: Witnesses later claimed they saw the accused with weapons in the field, but this detail was missing in the original FIR, raising credibility concerns.

  4. Suspicion vs. Proof: The court emphasized that suspicion alone, no matter how strong, is not enough to convict someone of a crime.

High Court’s Decision

After reviewing the trial court’s judgment, the Patna High Court upheld the acquittal, stating:

  • The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • The judgment was well-reasoned and based on legal precedents.

  • No merit was found in the appeal, leading to its dismissal.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of concrete evidence in criminal trials. While the appellant believed his brother was murdered by the accused, the court required undeniable proof to convict. The ruling serves as a reminder that the legal system prioritizes fairness and the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSMxNTAzIzIwMTkjMSNO-vCqEsb91rdo=