Blog

Case title: Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2011

Decided on: 05.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal.

 FACTS OF THE CASE:

Four individuals, Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Banti Isai, and Ajayya, were sentenced to life in prison under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC in a judgement and order dated September 15, 2008, by the 13th Additional Session Judge (Fast Track), Jabalpur, M.P. The fine for each of the four was Rs. 5,000. If the fine was not paid, the inmates would have to serve an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment.

Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra, and Banti Isai and Ajayya filed appeals, and all three of them succeeded in having the conviction and sentence from the Session Trial upheld. The appeals were both dismissed by the High Court.

The conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC, against which Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Banti Isai, and Ajayya have filed the current appeals.

On August 7, 2011, leave to appeal was granted for both appeals after they were tagged. While the appeal was still pending, Amit Mishra, one of the appellants, passed away. Consequently, the only person filing the appeal is the appellant, Jitendra Kumar Mishra.

At roughly 8:45 p.m. on June 8, 2007, the incident happened in front of the Machchu Hotel, which is under the control of the Ghamapur Police Station in Jabalpur and is close to the Shukla Hotel. Rajendra Yadav perished in the aforementioned incident. It is alleged that he was beaten and assaulted by all four accused while leaving the Machchu Hotel with his friends Virendra Verma and Amit Jha. The accused are said to have used a knife along with other weapons like a sickle and kesia.

Rajkumar Yadav, the deceased’s brother, and Usha Rani Yadav, his mother, received information regarding the alleged beating and assault of the deceased Pappu from Virendra Kumar.

They brought the dead to the Ghamapur Police Station in a rickshaw. Before pronounced him dead, complainant Rajkumar Yadav brought the deceased to Victoria Hospital in Jabalpur for medical attention.

The prosecution’s starting point is the decedent’s dying declaration. It’s the last statement made orally. The deceased made it for his brother Rajkumar Yadav and mother Usha Rani Yadav.

The deceased said that Banti Isai, Manja, and Ajay attacked him with knives, daggers, and kasia, respectively, and that Jittu grabbed both of his hands. The last line of the statement above answers the question the deceased’s mother asked after seeing her son lying in a pool of blood on the road.

One of the eyewitnesses, Rahul Yadav, has given testimony in addition to the previously mentioned dying declaration.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

The court convicted the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The crime of murder is covered in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Section 302 of the Code, however, stipulates the punishment for the offender. This Section states that a murderer will either receive life in prison or the death penalty in addition to a fine.

Section 34 of the IPC defines the acts committed by several people in furtherance of a common intention. The section states that “when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court found that the one Rahul Yadav is a relative of the deceased Pappu Yadav and thus cannot be considered a free and independent witness. The evidence shows that he has a criminal background. He is involved in one of the cases filed under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. Given his background, his testimony must be treated with extreme caution and cannot be relied on blindly without taking into account any available corroborating evidence on record.

The court said that the deceased did not mention in his alleged dying declaration or the statement given to his brother and mother that someone attempted to save him or that the above witness Rahul Yadav came to his aid but was forced to flee. Furthermore, the FIR does not mention the presence of Rahul Yadav. All of these factors cast serious doubt on the presence of Rahul Yadav, and the conviction cannot be based solely on his testimony.

The FIR stated that Virendra and Amit Jha, the deceased’s friends who were present at the time of the incident, witnessed the incident.

And the deceased Rajkumar Yadav’s brother works as a lawyer. The deceased’s brother and mother had rushed to the scene after receiving information about the incident from Virendra Kumar, who had gone to their house after witnessing the accused persons assaulting the deceased. All of this could have taken 15-25 minutes, implying that by the time they arrived at the scene, the deceased would not have survived long enough to make a declaration. There is no specific material piece of evidence to establish that the deceased was alive and in a position to speak when his brother and mother arrived at the spot. In these circumstances, the dying declaration cannot be accepted as correct without supporting evidence. There is no evidence to support the said dying declaration.

It also said that the appellate court should proceed cautiously in interfering with the conviction recorded by the courts below; however, where the evidence on record indicates that the prosecution has failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view other than the one expressed by the courts below can be taken, the appellate court should not hesitate to grant the accused persons the benefit of the doubt.

Given the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the court believes that the lower courts should have given the appellants the benefit of the doubt. As a result, they believe that the appellants’ conviction and sentence are reversible, and they do so by granting the benefit of the doubt.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click to read the judgement