"Murder, Suspicion, and Justice: Why the Court Acquitted the Accused"

 


Introduction

This case revolves around a mysterious disappearance and murder in a rural village in Bihar. The prosecution alleged that the victim was last seen with the accused, and circumstantial evidence suggested their involvement in the crime. However, due to inconsistencies in witness statements and gaps in the chain of evidence, the trial court acquitted the accused. The informant, dissatisfied with the verdict, appealed to the Patna High Court, which ultimately upheld the acquittal, ruling that suspicion alone cannot replace proof in a criminal trial.

Background of the Case

The case originated in Khusrupur, Patna, where an FIR was filed on October 24, 2007. The appellant, Sugreev Mahto, alleged that his younger brother (the victim) was last seen with the following individuals:

  1. Suresh Paswan

  2. Ram Nandan Mahto

  3. Ram Sakal Paswan

  4. Krishna Mahto

The prosecution claimed that the accused lured the victim to a hut near a community hall, where they ate fish, consumed liquor, and later took him towards an agricultural field. The victim was never seen again, and later, his dead body was found in a nearby field.

The police registered a case under Section 364/34 IPC (kidnapping with common intent). Later, when the body was recovered, charges of murder under Section 302 IPC were added.

Prosecution's Claims and Trial

1. The Last Seen Theory

  • The prosecution’s primary argument was that the deceased was last seen alive with the accused, which placed suspicion on them.

  • Witnesses testified that the victim and accused were drinking liquor and eating together before heading towards a field.

  • Later, the victim’s scarf (gamcha) was found near trampled crops, raising fears that he had been kidnapped or murdered.

2. Circumstantial Evidence

  • The prosecution had no direct eyewitnesses to the murder. Instead, it relied on circumstantial evidence:

    • The accused and victim were seen together shortly before the murder.

    • The accused went in the same direction as the victim.

    • The body was found in the same area where they were last seen.

3. Key Witnesses

  • The Informant (PW-7): The victim’s brother, who claimed to have seen his brother being taken away.

  • Other witnesses: Stated that the accused were in the area with weapons and followed the victim.

4. Police Investigation

  • The police filed a charge sheet in January 2008, accusing the respondents of kidnapping and murder.

  • The trial started in 2009, and the prosecution presented eight witnesses to establish the accused’s involvement.

Trial Court’s Findings – Why Were the Accused Acquitted?

The trial court dismissed the case due to lack of conclusive proof and ruled that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The key reasons were:

1. Break in the Chain of Circumstantial Evidence

  • The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be complete to convict someone.

  • In this case, the prosecution only proved that the accused and victim were together earlier in the evening.

  • However, there was no direct proof of how the victim was killed or whether the accused were involved in his death.

2. The “Last Seen” Theory Was Inconclusive

  • The trial court ruled that simply being last seen together does not prove murder.

  • The accused left the area 10-20 minutes after the victim, which left enough time for other possibilities to arise.

3. Witness Statements Were Contradictory

  • Witnesses claimed they saw the accused armed with weapons in the field but never mentioned this in the FIR.

  • The court ruled that such a crucial detail being omitted from the FIR raised doubts about the reliability of the witnesses.

4. Suspicion Alone is Not Proof

  • The court referenced the famous Supreme Court case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984), which stated that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace evidence.

  • Since there was no forensic or eyewitness evidence linking the accused to the murder, they were given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted on February 17, 2019.

Appeal to the Patna High Court

Unhappy with the verdict, the informant appealed to the Patna High Court under Section 372 CrPC.

Arguments by the Appellant

  • The informant’s lawyer argued that:

    • The accused were the last people to be seen with the victim.

    • They had not explained what happened after they left the hut.

    • This was enough to convict them under Section 106 of the Evidence Act (which shifts the burden of proof to a person who had exclusive knowledge of a fact).

High Court’s Ruling – Why Was the Acquittal Upheld?

After reviewing the trial court’s decision, the Patna High Court dismissed the appeal on November 29, 2022, stating:

✅ The trial court had given a well-reasoned verdict.
✅ The prosecution failed to prove a continuous chain of circumstances leading to the accused.
✅ The accused were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

The High Court agreed that suspicion alone is not enough and that a conviction must be based on strong, reliable evidence.

Key Legal Takeaways from the Case

1. The "Last Seen" Theory Needs Stronger Proof

  • Courts require clear evidence linking the accused to the crime, not just proof that they were seen together.

  • Without additional evidence (like forensic proof or a confession), this theory alone is not enough for a conviction.

2. Circumstantial Evidence Must Form a Complete Chain

  • Every link in the chain must be proven beyond doubt.

  • In this case, the prosecution failed to connect the accused directly to the murder.

3. Benefit of Doubt is a Fundamental Right

  • Indian law favors "innocent until proven guilty."

  • If evidence is incomplete or unreliable, the accused must be acquitted.

Conclusion: Did Justice Prevail?

This case highlights the challenges of proving murder in the absence of direct evidence. The victim’s family strongly believed the accused were guilty, but the courts ruled that belief is not enough – legal proof is required.

While some might argue that the real culprits escaped punishment, the verdict reaffirms the fundamental principle that justice must be based on facts, not assumptions.

Read the full judgement Below;

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