MUNDRIKA MAHTO AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 29-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE

Judgment (excerpt)

.... • 
MUNDRIKA MAHTO AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
APRIL 29, 2002 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Murder-FIR-No mention of names of some of the accused-Effect 
of-Held, considering the shock on the minds of eye-witnesses on whose C 
statement FIR was recorded and when large number of accused were involved 
in the commission of crime, not naming of some of the accused by itself would 
not result in failure of prosecution. Penal Code, Ss. 302134 and 201. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Testimony of the eye-witnesses-Appreciation of-Held, within a short 
time of occurrence of crime the statement of informant naming the accused 
was recorded though not corroborated by the statement of other eye-
witnesses-Held, there is no scope for false implication within such short time 
span. 
Testimony of interested witness-Reliability-When the manner of 
commission of the crime has been fully corroborated by the testimony of the 
eye-witnesses, minor contradictions in the testimony are of no consequence 
. and it is trustworthy and reliable-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
According to prosecution, on the fateful day deceased was riding a 
scooter and two persons (prosecution witnesses} were sitting on the back of 
D 
E 
F 
the scooter. When they reached near a tea stall, they were obstructed by a 
hand-cart and suddenly 10 to 15 persons (accused) came and pulled the 
deceased from the scooter and two of them assaulted the deceased with sharp 
edged weapons and severed bis head from the trunk. On alarm being raised G 
by the persons accompanying the deceased, son of the deceased reached the 
place of occurrence. The accused dragged the trunk of the deceased and 
+ 
dumped the same in a pond. Police was informed about the incident on 
telephone. Within 15 minutes, Police reached the spot and statement of one 
of the eye-witnesses (nephew of the deceased) was recorded and FIR was H 
575 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 
A registered. Statement of other eye-witness was also recorded, who in his 
-.... 
testimony identified the accused persons but did not mention the name of the 
main accused. The Sessions Judge acquitted one of the accused and convicted 
the remaining 12 accused under Sections 302/34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code 
and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Each of them was sentenced to 
B 
imprisonment for life. Aggrieved, accused moved the High Court. High Court 
acquitted three of them and affirmed the conviction of the remaining nine 
accused persons. Hence this appeal. 
. .. 
It was contended for the appellants that one of the eye-witnesses had 
not named one of the appellants and, therefore, conviction of the appellants 
c on the basis of the statement of another interested witness could not be 
sustained; and that if the trunk of the deceased had been dragged, as alleged, 
there would have been more injuries on the trunk but there was no mention 
as .such in the inquest report which implied that it was either not visible or 
was considered inconsequential by the Investigating Officer. 
..._
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The testimony of the prosecution witness is most natural, -
• 
)-
trustworthy and reliable. The fact that this witness has named the two accu~ed 
and not the other appellant, shows the truthfulness of the statement that the 
witness knew .only some of the accused by name and, thus, he named them. 
E Regarding others, his statement is that 14-15 persons came there and one of 
them put the amputated head in a plastic bag. (579-H; 580-A] 
1.2. It is important to bear in mind that within about 15 minutes of the 
commission of the offence, the Police party arrived at the scene and within 
15 minutes thereof, the statement of informant naming the appellants was 
~· 
; 
F recorded. As such it cannot be said that since the appellants were not named 
by one of the witnesses or that he had not heard their names shows that they 
were ialsely implicated and that there was hardly any scope for false or over 
L 
implication within a short time span of about half an hour. In respect of 
Informant/Prosecution witness who is the r~lative of the deceased and has 
G identified all the accused, the contention that he being an interested witness, 
the conviction of the appellants cannot be based on his testimony without any 
corroboration is witbout any substance. The manner of commission of the 
offence has been fully corroborated by the testim

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