In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has issued its judgement in the case of The State of Bihar v. Mantu Tiwari & Vijay Kumar Shukla. The court’s decision holds Mantu Tiwari & Vijay Kumar Shukla guilty for the tragic events that occurred at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science. This judgement marks a pivotal moment in the legal proceedings surrounding this case. #SupremeCourt #IndianLaw #JusticeServed
Facts
- Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) is a planted witness, not mentioned in the fardbeyan.
- The post-mortem reports confirmed homicidal deaths due to gunshot injuries.
- State of Bihar and Rama Devi appealed against the judgement.
- The High Court found FIR No. 336/1998 to be ante-timed.
- Rabindra Bhagat suffered a gunshot wound in the crossfire.
- The prosecution case had eleven eyewitnesses.
- Paras Nath Chaudhury’s testimony was deemed unreliable.
- The prosecution case detailed the events leading to the deaths of the victims.
- The High Court of Judicature at Patna reversed the judgment of the trial court
- Acquitted nine accused of charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act
- The incident occurred on 13.06.1998 at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Patna
Also Read: The People vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: Landmark Judgement on Circumstantial Evidence
Analysis
- The court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment.
- The evidence of a hostile witness is not to be completely rejected, to avoid excluding versions that support the prosecution.
- The depositions of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) and Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) do not mention the retaliatory firing by the bodyguards, but this alone is not a sufficient ground to dismiss their presence at the spot or their versions including the culpability of the persons who had committed the offence.
- Several people had gathered at the hospital during the incident.
- Earlier visits by Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) to Brij Bihari Prasad were noted, although the exact dates and times were not remembered.
- Rai Singh Khatri (PW-62) presented telephone records indicating calls between specific individuals, but without substantial proof to establish a conspiracy charge.
- Shashi Bhushan Sharma (PW-54) failed to establish the source of information from Sone Lal (PW-32) and Lal Babu Chaudhury (PW-39).
- The court accepted the witness accounts establishing the presence of visitors and eyewitnesses at the hospital.
- The recovery of empty cartridges and the firearms examination report indicated firing from the security guards in response to the attack.
- The identification and non-recovery of vehicles and weapons did not undermine the credibility of eyewitness accounts or corroborative evidence regarding the homicidal deaths of Brij Bihari Prasad and Lakshmeshwar Sahu.
- The Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan emphasized the importance of demonstrating how a delay in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate prejudices the accused’s case.
- The contradiction in the statement of witness Paras Nath Chaudhury regarding the accused’s actions does not weaken his account of witnessing the offence.
- Indian law does not follow the doctrine ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ which means false in one thing, false in everything.
- The case of Deep Chand and Others v. State of Haryana is referenced in this context.
- The charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC against Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) for the murders of Brij Bihari Prasad and Lakshmeshwar Sahu is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- The charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC against Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) for attempting to murder is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- The conviction and sentence awarded to Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC are affirmed and restored.
- Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) are sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
- They are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
- Both sentences shall run concurrently.
Also Read: Landmark Decision by the Supreme Court of India on Arbitration Time Limit Extension
Decision
- Suraj Bhan Singh (A-1), Mukesh Singh (A-2), Lallan Singh (A-3), Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6), and Rajan Tiwari (A-9) are acquitted due to benefit of the doubt.
- The appeals are partially allowed based on the directions issued in paragraph 44.
- Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) must undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in case of non-payment of fine.
- Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) are directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the remainder of their sentences.
Also Read: Modification of Order: Enforcement Directorate v. Amit Walia
Case Title: RAMA DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR (2024 INSC 755)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002623-002631 – 2014
