ARJUN MAHTO versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 94 · Decided: 13-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 94 
A 
ARJUN MAHTO 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 753 OF 2001 
B 
AUGUST 13, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
' 
~ i 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
s. 395 - Dacoity - Large number of persons entered the 
premises and attacked the residents with lathi, gun and pharsa 
- Thereafter looted the househol~ properties - Conviction of 
five accused persons under s.395 - Challenge against, on 
D 
ground that witnesses were related to deceased hence not 
trustworthy and that sentence be reduced considering long 
passage of time - Held: Evidence of injured witnesses and 
,,._ 
other eye-witnesses support the prosecution case - No infir-
mity in order of conviction - Further, in case of dacoity, le-
E 
niency in sentence would not only be undesirable but also 
would be improper - Passage of time would not wash away 
gravity of offence - Sentence/Sentencing - Reduction of --In 
case of dacoity. 
s.395 - Dacoity- Accused not named in FIR - Acquittal 
F by Courts below doubting prosecution version - Correctness 
of - Held: Correct. 
Evidence: Testimony of relatives - Evidentiary value of 
- Held: Relationship not a factor to affect credibility of witness 
G 
- When there is a/legation of interestedness, the same has to 
be established - Mere statement, that being relatives of the 
deceased, they are likely to falsely implicate the accused, can-
,.\ 
not be a ground to discard the evidence, which is otherwise 
cog(lnt and credible. 
H 
94 
ARJUN MAHTO v. STATE OF BIHAR 
95 
• 
} 
The prosecution case was that on the fateful evening 
A 
when informant PW-4 was in his house, 10 armed per-
sons entered into the house through an open door. One 
of them fired twice from the gun which injured the infor-
mant. Informant fled inside the room. He was dragged into 
the courtyard where his father PW-3 and his brother (de-
B 
ceased) were sitting. The deceased was caused injuries 
1 
with pharsa and gun shot while PW-3 was attacked with 
lathi and pharsa. In the meantime, 20~25 more persons 
.. 
entered and began looting away the household proper-
ties. 
c 
The trial Court held the appellants guilty under s.396 
IPC, however, directed acquittal of 11 co-accused per-
sons. The appellants filed appeals before High Court while 
the State filed an appeal questioning acquittal of one 
'SAK'. 
D 
The High Court dismissed the State's appeal while 
in case of appellants altered the conviction from s.396 IPC 
to s.395 IPC. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 
life was altered to seven years rigorous imprisonment. 
E 
In these appeals, the appellant contended that since 
the witnesses were related to the deceased, their evidence 
could not be accepted particularly when two of them were 
disbelieved and role of .'SAK' which was so eloquently 
stated by witnesses was discarded and that most of ap-
F 
pellants suffered s·entence of nearly 4-% years and con-
sidering the long passage of time, the sentence should 
be suitably reduced. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Merely because the eye-witnesses are fam-
G 
I 
ily members, their evidence cannot per se be discarded. 
/ 
When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has 
to be established. Mere statement that, being relatives of 
the deceased, they are likely to falsely implicate the ac-
H 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 
.. 
A 
cused, cannot be a ground to discard the evidence, which 
~ 
is otherwise cogent and ·credible. Relationship is not a 
factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than 
not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and 
make allegations against an innocent person. Founda-
B tion has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In 
such cases, the court ·has to adopt a careful approach 
.... and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and 
~-
credible. [Para 5] [100,G-H; 101-A-B] 
~ 
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953) 
c SC 364; Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3 
SCC 698; Vadive/u Thevar v. State of Madras AIR (1957) SC 
614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP AIR (1965) SC 202; 
State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR 1973 SC 2407; Lehna v. 
State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera and 
D Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381; Babula/ Bhagwan 
Khandare and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2005)10 SCC 404; 
Salim Sahab v. State of M.P (2007) 1 sec 699 - relied on. 
..,_ 
2.1. In the instant case, the evidence of the injured 
E

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.