[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Mantun Sahni @ Tuntun Sahni vs State Of Bihar on 29 November, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy, Khatim Reza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.158 of 2002
======================================================
Mantun Sahni @ Tuntun Sahni son of Sankar Sahni, Resident of village-
Barisankh, P.S.-Mufassil, Dist.-Begusarai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Nazir, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY)
Date : 29-11-2025
Ms. Maria Nazir is assisting this Court as
Amicus Curiae. In the present appeal, on 20.09.2025, before
another coordinate bench, no one appeared for the appellant, as
such, the bench appointed Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh as
Amicus Curiae. However, today on call, he has chosen to absent
himself and in that circumstances, Ms. Nazir has been requested
to assist the Court in the present appeal.
2. The report of the S.P., Begusarai has been
received, according to which, the present appellant is alive.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
2/22
(A). PRAYER:
3. The present memo of appeal has been
preferred against the judgment and order of sentence dated
07.02.2002
and 08.02.2002 respectively passed in the Sessions
Trial no. 06/2001/25 of 2001 by the learned 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Begusarai by which the Court found the
appellant to be guilty for the offence under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he
was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life
and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(B) FACTS:
4. The matter relates to Begusarai Sadar
Mufassil Case no. 142 of 2000 lodged on 30.05.2000 under
Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The informant, Chhattu Sah is the father of
the Hazari Sah (deceased). According to the prosecution story,
on 29.05.2000, the informant along with his son (deceased) and
other family members had gone to attend the feast at Sukhdeo
Sah's house. They went to the place at 6:00 p.m. in the evening
and returned an hour later.
6. On the way, Mantun Sahni (appellant) and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
Sulendra Sahni were standing whereafter, his son asked the
informant to go home stating that he shall be accompanying
them. When his son failed to return in the night, he went out in
search at his orchard/Dharamshala as also 'Dera' but could not
find him whereafter he slept at the 'Dera'.
7. On 30.05.2000, at 5 o'clock, the people raised
alarm about the presence of a dead body in the mango orchard
of Chandradeo Sao. He reached there and found his son, Hazari
Sah dead with multiple injuries on the body.
8. The allegation is that five days ago, Mantun
Sahni and Sulendar Sahni had altercation with the deceased's
son and further, as on the alarm raised by the villagers about
killing of his son, others came but these two accuseds failed to
present themselves, as such he has strong suspicion that they are
the main culprits. This led to the FIR aforesaid.
9. The Police investigated the matter and having
found the case true against the appellant submitted charge-
sheet against Mantun Sahni under section 302/34 of the I.P.C.
So far as the accused Sulendra Sahni is concerned, as he was a
juvenile, his case was separated from this appellant. Later, the
the cognizance was taken against the appellant under Section
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code which led to the initiation of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
the trial against him vide Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2001/25 of
2001.
10. The case was taken up by the learned 3 rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai. The charges were framed
against the appellant and he denied his role in the present case
as such the trial commenced.
11. The prosecution side in support of the case,
produced all together seven witnesses as follows:-
PW-1- Ram Charitra Sah
PW-2- Madan Sah (youngest son of the
informant)
PW-3- Dr. Hari Narayan Singh (Doctor who
conducted the post-mortem)
PW-4 -Chhattu Sah (informant of the case)
PW-5- Wakil Sah (brother-in-law of the
informant)
PW-6- Baidyanath Sah (full brother of the
informant)
PW-7- Shyamakant Jha (Officer-In-charge)
12. The exhibits produced by them is/are as
follows:-
(i). Exhibit 1- the Inquest report;
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
(ii). Exhibit-1/1-Fardbeyan;
(iii). Exhibit-1/2- Signature of Rejendra Sah on
the fardbeyan;
(iv). Exhibit-2- the Postmortem report
(v). Exhibit-3- the testimony of PW-7
13. The Defence Side put forward two witness
as:
i. D.W.- 1Anandi Sah
ii. D.W.-2 Ram Chandra Paswan
14. PW-1- Ram Charitra Sah was the person
who accompanied the informant/deceased to the feast in the
evening. According to him, on the way, Hazari Sah (deceased)
told him that he is going to the 'Terasi Tola'. In his deposition,
P.W.1 he has not stated anything about the appellant and
Sulendra Sahni or Hazari Sah wanted to accompany them.
Rather, it is his statement that while returning together, Hazari
Sah informed that he was going towards 'Terasi Tola'.
15. PW-2 Madan Sahni is the youngest son of
the informant. He was also accompanying the family to the
feast. He has narrated the informant's version. During the cross-
examination, the PW2 stated that he had no knowledge whether
his brother died due to excessive consumption of 'toddy' and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
further do not know who has killed him. This P.W. during his
cross-examination accepted that his brother (deceased) was used
to consume 'toddy'.
16. PW-3 Dr. Hari Narayan Singh is the Medical
Officer who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. He has
recorded about damage of one eye as also the injuries near the
left ear beside the fracture of parietal bone. He further found the
abrasion on the neck and dissection of thorax and abdomen,
were found empty. Bladder was also found empty. The time of
death has been recorded between 6 to 24 hours.
17. PW-4 Chhatuu Sahni is the informant of
the case. He has supported the prosecution story and stated that
there was some dispute due to money between the accused and
his son. According to him, they had their meal at 6 o'clock
whereafter, they returned home. Upon sight of appellant and
Sulendra hs son, Hazari Sah (deceased) went to Terasi Tola and
the house of Mantun Sahni is also there.
18. During the cross-examination, he further
accepted that he chose not to go the house of the appellant or
Sulendra Sahni in the night while searching his son around 7.00-
7.30 PM.
19. PW-5 Wakil Sah is the cousin brother-in-law
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
of the informant. He has not accompanied the
informant/deceased to the feast and according to him, around
7:00 pm, when he was returning home from his field, had seen
Mantun Sahni, Sulendra Sahni and the deceased strolling there.
He asked the deceased to return home but was informed that he
will be coming later on.
20. PW-6 Baidyanath Sah is the full brother of
the informant. He had also gone to attend the feast and
according to him, they returned around 6:45 pm and found
Mantun Sahni and Sulendra Sahni, whereafter, the deceased
went with them. In his deposition, the aforesaid PW recorded
that while returning, they saw the appellant and Sulendra Sahni
sitting on a brick soling whereafter the deceased, Hazari Sah
also sat there.
21. PW-7 is Shyamakant Jha, the Officer-In-
charge of the Begusarai Sadar Mufassil Police Station, who
recorded the fardbeyan of the informant as also sent the dead
body for the post-mortem. He examined the place of occurrence
and found some pieces of bread. The inquest report was also
prepared at the place of occurrence itself. During the cross-
examination, he accepted that he did not visited the house of
Sukhdeo Sahni to check whether there was feast or not. The PW
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
further acknowledged that he failed to incorporate that both the
informant and accused have their residential houses side by side.
He accepted that the statement of witnesses were recorded at
one go on 15.06.2000 at the Police station itself. He however
denied that the investigation was faulty.
22. The defence side produced two witnesses
which are as follows:-
(i) DW-1 Anandi Sah and
(ii) DW-2 Ramchandra Paswan.
23. DW-1 Anandi Sah in his deposition stated
that he had seen Hazari Sah (deceased) in the orchard.
24. DW-2 Ramchandra Paswan on the other
hand has recorded that the dead body of Hazari Sah was found
near the 'Bhola Baba' temple. Nothing more has been recorded
by him save and except the fact that at around 8-9 PM, when he
visited to his orchard, he had not seen them and further he slept
all night in his field but never heard any sound of scream.
25. The Trial Court heard the parties and on the
basis of testimony of the witnesses, came to the conclusion that
the prosecution has proved the case. It is the case of last seen
when the deceased was accompanying the appellant and the
accused are certainly answerable to the circumstances and as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
they failed, the allegation that they murdered the deceased stand
proved. It is further to be noted that the Trial Court put the onus
of proving his whereabouts at the time of occurrence to him.
26. The Trial court thus came to the conclusion
that Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is proved beyond
reasonable doubt and accordingly, vide an order dated
07.02.2002 and 08.02.2002 convicted and sentenced the
appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months.
27. Aggrieved, the present appeal.
28. The appeal was earlier admitted and vide
orders dated 14.02.2006 read with 21.02.2006, the sole
appellant was released on bail.
(C) SUBMISSIONS:
29. Ms. Maria Nazir, learned amicus curiae made
the following submissions:-
(i) the appellant has been convicted only on the
basis of having last seen with the deceased. The submission is
that even if we go through the statements recorded by the
prosecution witnesses, most of them being relatives and even
then, three versions have come out:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
(a) while the informant-
PW4-Chattu Sah alleged that after the
feast, they were returning home around 6:45
pm. On the way, the appellant and Sulendra
Sahni were present. Hazari Sah wanted to
accompany them and left the place. On the
other hand, PW-6- Baidyanath Sah
recorded that while returning after the feast,
he saw Mantun Sahni and Sulendra Sahni
sitting on a brick soling where after Hazari
Sah also sat;
(b) his version is contrary to
the original version that on the way, they saw
the appellant whereafter, Hazari Sah wanted
to accompany them;
(c) on the other hand, the
PW-1 Ramchandra Sah version is entirely
different inasmuch as, according to him,
while returning home after the feast, the
deceased Hazari Sah told them that he was
going to Terasi Tola. P.W.1 has said nothing
about the appellant.
30. The submission is that in his statement, the
PW1 has not named either the appellant or Sulendra Sahni.
Further submission is that P.W.1 is the only the person who can
be considered as an independent witness while other witnesses
are full brother or son or the cousin brother-in-law.
31. Learned amicus curiae further submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
the informant alleged in the F.I.R. that on hearing the alarm
about the presence of the dead body of Hazari Sah, all the
villagers assembled but the allegation is that the accused failed
to turn up. She submits that this cannot be the reason to
implicate the appellant, convict and sentence him to undergo
imprisonment for life. There can be multiple reasons for not
presenting themselves at the place of occurrence, fear can be
one of the important factor, as if, the prosecution version has to
be accepted, they were the persons who were last seen.
32. Learned amicus curiae further submits that
the Police utterly failed to investigate the matter on the
whereabouts and/or the presence of the accused persons either at
the time of feast or at the time of the occurrence.
33. Ms. Nazir submits that surprisingly, the Trial
Court failed to look into these faulty investigation and in fact
recorded that when the accused was accompanying the
deceased, he is answerable to the circumstances. She submits
that certainly, it was the duty of the Police to prove beyond the
reasonable doubt about the role of the appellant relating to the
death by completing the chain of events from the time (6:45
P.M.), when it is alleged that the accused accompanied the
deceased till his death.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
34. Learned counsel submits that number of
prosecution witnesses have accepted the fact that not only the
deceased was in the habit of consuming toddy, he also used to
remain out of his house regularly in the night and as such, even
his father has stated that after searching him for a while, he
returned and slept at home. The submission is that in that
background, the statement of one of the witness i.e. DW-2, Ram
Chandra Paswan that he slept in the orchard and did not hear
any scream cannot be ignored. She submits that the appellant
was forced to remain in jail for couple of years after the
conviction till he was granted bail in the year 2006.
35. She concludes by submitting that the appeal
is fit to be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of all the
charges as the prosecution side failed to prove the charges
beyond the reasonable doubt.
36. Learned APP representing the State on the
other hand opposes the prayer. The submission is that the
appellant was last seen with the deceased and on the next day,
the dead body was found with multiple injuries. Further, despite
the villagers who were present there, the appellant chose not to
come to the place which clearly shows his involvement. In that
background, the trial court is fully justified in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
convicting/sentencing him to life imprisonment. Thus the appeal
is fit to be dismissed.
(D) FINDINGS:
37. We have heard the parties and gone through
the prosecution story, the statement of the witnesses, the exhibits
as also the order dated 07.02.2002 and 08.02.2002 passed by the
learned Trial Court. The prosecution version is that while the
informant and his son (deceased) alongwith others were
returning home after a feast from the house of Sukhdeo Sah, at
around 6:45 PM, they saw the appellant and Sulendra Sahni,
whereafter, the deceased wanted to accompany them. Later,
when the deceased failed to return home, the informant started
searching him between 7:00 to 7:30 pm but could not find his
son. Ultimately, he returned home and slept. Later, in the
morning, the dead body was found.
38. If the prosecution version is to be believed,
the deceased on his own went with the appellant and Sulendra
around 6:45 PM, within 15 minutes, the informant went to
search him at around 7:00 PM. Later he returned home at 7:30
PM. In the opinion of the court, it is not probable that within 15
minutes, the informant went out in search of his son but came
back after half an hour at 07:30 PM. and slept. Further, it is not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
his case that despite knowledge that the deceased went with the
appellant and Sulendra Sahni, he visited their houses in the
evening to know/enquire from them about his son. It is to be
noted that during the summer time, the sun sets at 7:30 P.M.
39. Even in the next morning, after the dead
body was found and according to the allegation, the accused did
not present themselves despite the fact that all the villagers
came, he did not checked the accused's whereabouts at their
respective houses. The informant further accepted during the
cross-examination that his son used to consume toddy.
40. In that background, the statement made by
PW-1 Ram Charitra Sah has to be taken into the account that
after the feast, when they were returning, the deceased told
them that he is going to Terasi Tola. He neither named the
appellant nor stated that the deceased wanted to accompany
them. Unfortunately, this statement of P.W.1 was completely
missed by the learned Trial Court.
41. Again, the P.W.-6, Baidyanath Sah recorded
that while returning, they saw the accused sitting on brick
soling, this version is quite different from the informant's
story.
42. Further, from the statements of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the deceased was in the
habit of consuming toddy and further used to remain outside in
the night. Even if, the presence of the appellant along with the
deceased is accepted, the chain under no circumstance gets
completed inasmuch as the prosecution has utterly failed to look
into the factors which could have nailed the appellant about his
continuous presence with the deceased till his death. The
postmortem report recording the time of death between 6 to 24
hours do not help the case either.
43. It is to be noted that the police failed to
procure the weapon/material used in the killing of the deceased.
In fact, the police from the beginning made a faulty
investigation by accepting the informant's version as sacrosanct
and acted on the same line. After a fortnight, the police
summoned and recorded the statements of all the witnesses at
one go at the police station itself on 15.06.2000 and thereafter
submitted the charge-sheet in a routine manner. The fact that the
police never visited the house of Sukhdeo Sah to ascertain
whether there is/was any feast or not and/or whether the
informant/deceased were present there or not clearly shows how
casually and in an unprofessional manner, a murder case has
been investigated.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
44. Further, it is also not the prosecution case
that any point of time, the police either visited the house of the
appellant and/or his neighbours to ascertain his whereabouts at
the time of occurrence. Further, though in the F.I.R., it has been
recorded that the entire villagers came to the place of
occurrence, the police for the reasons best known chose not to
record the statements of any of them. Instead and as recorded
earlier, a fortnight later, the family members were summoned
and their statements recorded at the police station at one go.
45. The police is certainly answerable to the said
faulty investigation wherein it accepted the informant's version
and submitted charge-sheet in a routine manner.
46. The learned Trial Court failed to look into
these aspects and instead accepting the informant's version
came to the conclusion that since they were last seen persons,
whereabouts not clear and as such they are the culprits. This led
to the conviction of this appellant under Section 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life as also fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of
payment, further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
47. The evidence of last seen is a weak piece of
evidence and conviction on the basis of last seen without any
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
supporting evidence cannot be the ground for conviction under
Section 302/34 of the IPC.
48. This Court has also taken note of the exhibits
and failed to understand why the police despite recording the
presence of blood stains at the place of occurrence neither
collected it nor put forward it before the court as exhibit. The
Police further failed to procure/seize the weapon used in the
alleged killing.
49. Whether the suspicion based on last seen can
be the sole ground to convict an accused under section 302/34
of the IPC, this Court wonders. Further, as observed, the last
seen theory alone cannot be the basis for conviction unless it is
supported by evidences completing the chain. The time gap
between the last sighting and the death being unclear, the
conviction cannot be sustained.
50. The case is based purely on the
circumstantial evidence. In that background, the prosecution
is/was obliged to prove each and every circumstance to
complete the entire chain so that there is no scope of probability
to conclude that it was the appellant herein who committed the
crime.
51. In the case of Kanhaiya Lal vs State of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
Rajasthan report in (2014) SCC 715, Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph 15 observed as follows:
15. The theory of last seen the appellant having
gone with the deceased in the manner noticed
hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial
evidence available against him. The conviction of
the appellant cannot be maintained merely on
suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his
conduct. These facts assume further importance on
account of absence of proof of motive particularly
when it is proved that there was cordial
relationship between the accused and the deceased
for a long time. The fact situation bears great
similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of
Rajasthan.
52. Recently too, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Padman Bibhar vs. State of Odisha in SLP(Cr.)
No.17440 of 2024 in paragraphs 23 and 24 recorded as
follows:
23. On the basis of above discussion, we are of the
opinion that the nature of circumstantial evidence
available against the appellant though raises doubt
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
that he may have committed murder but the same is
not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on
the basis of evidence on 'last seen together'.
24. It is held by this Court in Sujit Biswas vs.
State of Assam suspicion, howsoever strong,
cannot substitute the proof and conviction is
not permissible only on the basis of the
suspicion. It is held thus in para 6:
"6. Suspicion, however grave it may be,
cannot take the place of proof, and there is a
large difference between something that
"may be" proved, and something that "will
be proved". In a criminal trial, suspicion no
matter how strong, cannot and must not be
permitted to take place of proof. This is for
the reason that the mental distance between
"may be" and "must be" is quite large and
divides vague conjectures from sure
conclusions. In a criminal case, the court
has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or
suspicion do not take the place of legal
proof. The large distance between "may be
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
true and "must be true, must be covered by
way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable
evidence produced by the prosecution,
before an accused is condemned as a
convict, and the basic and golden rule must
be applied. In such cases, while keeping in
mind the distance between "may be" true
and "must be true, the court must maintain
the vital distance between mere conjectures
and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the
touchstone of dispassionate Judicial
scrutiny, based upon a complete and
comprehensive appreciation of all features of
the case, as well as the quality and
credibility of the evidence brought on record.
The court must ensure, that miscarriage of
Justice is avoided, and if the facts and
circumstances of a case so demand, then the
benefit of doubt must be given to the
accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable
doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely
probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
based upon reason and common sense. (Vide
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of
M.P. (1952) 2 SCC 71, State v. Mahender
Singh Dahiya (2011) 3 SCC 109 and Ramesh
Harijan v. State of U.P. (2012) 5 SCC 777,"
53. The aforesaid two judgments of Hon'ble
Apex Court are fully applicable in this case where only on the
basis of last seen theory, the appellant has been convicted. This
Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.
It has completely failed to establish the guilt of the appellant as
it could not complete the chain of circumstances to exclude
every possible theory except that of guilt.
54. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
07.02.2002 and 08.02.2002 respectively in T.S. No. 06/ 2001/25
of 2001 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Begusarai is hereby set aside. The appellant, who is on bail, is
absolved of the bail bonds.
55. Before parting, this Court would like to put
on record its word of appreciation for Ms. Maria Nazir, learned
Amicus Curiae for the proper assistance rendered by her in a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.158 of 2002 dt.29-11-2025
professional manner. Patna High Court Legal Services
Committee is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- (five
thousand) to Ms. Maria Nazir, learned Amicus Curiae, as
consolidated fee for the legal assistance rendered by her which
shall be paid to her within a period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of this order.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
( Khatim Reza, J)
Ravi/Prabhat
AFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.12.2025
Transmission Date 04.12.2025
