Patna High Court
Manjan Mahto And Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 14 October, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.285 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2014 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Manjan Mahto, Son of Ramuna Mahto
2. Samtola Devi @ Sripati Devi, Wife of Ramuna Mahto
Both Residents of village- Nankar, PS Lauriya, District West Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Advocate
Mr. Upendra Kumar Chaubey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.A. Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN)
Date : 16-10-2025
Heard learned counsel Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, for
the appellants assisted by Mr. Upendra Kumar Chaubey, learned
Advocate and Mr. S. A. Ahmad, learned A.P.P. for the
respondent-State.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred as 'Code') challenging the Judgment of conviction
dated 2nd of March, 2016 and the order of sentence dated 5th
March, 2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Sessions Trial No. 555 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
2/29
2014 arising out of Lauriya P.S. Case No. 05 of 2014
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 139 of 2004 holding the
appellants guilty under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- each under
Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment of six
months.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is as under : -
As per the written statement of the informant, Lalan
Mahato, his sister, Samtola Devi alias Munni Devi, had been
married to the son of Ramuna Mahato in Nanhkar Belwa
village, located in the Lauriya police station area, approximately
three years ago. It is stated that she was repeatedly subjected to
physical abuse by her husband and in-laws, who blamed her for
being unable to bear children. On the morning of January 12,
2014, at around 8:00 AM, Lalan received a call informing him
that his sister had been set on fire and was severely burned by
her husband, Manjan Mahato, along with Ramuna Mahato. At
the time, Samtola Devi was being treated at Lauriya hospital.
Upon arriving at the hospital, the informant observed that his
sister had sustained serious burns, and the attending doctor
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
3/29
referred her to M.J.K. Hospital in Bettiah for further treatment.
Lalan Mahto subsequently took his sister to Bettiah, but
tragically, she succumbed to her injuries and passed away in the
car on the way there.
4. Based on the informant's written report, Lauriya
Police Station Case No. 5/2014 was registered under Sections
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of the
investigation, chargesheet was filed under Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code against the accused named in the FIR,
namely Manjan Mahato and Samtola Devi. The investigation
against the other accused, Ramuna Mahato, remained ongoing.
5. On 18.06.2014, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate
took cognizance of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code against the accused and transferred the case to the
Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, by an order dated 05.08.2014,
the Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of
Sessions. The case was received in the Court of the Sessions
Judge on 19.08.2014, who passed an order transferring it to the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge-VI.
6. On 19.08.2014, charges were framed against the
aforementioned accused under Sections 302 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. After the prosecution concluded its evidence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
4/29
on 10.12.2015, the statements of the accused were recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No
defence evidence was presented by either party in the case.
After conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Court passed
the judgment of conviction and sentenced the appellants to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/- each under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months.
7. In this case, a total of 14 witnesses have been
presented by the prosecution. The prosecution's post-mortem
examination is Exhibit 1, Lauria Police Station Case No. 5/14's
Fardbeyan is Exhibit 2, dying declaration of Samtola Devi is
Exhibit 3, handwriting and signature of the written report is
Exhibit 4, formal FIR of Lauriya police station case no. 5/14 is
Exhibit 5, inquest report is Exhibit 6, Station Diary Entry No.
298 dated 12.1.14 is Exhibit 7, S.D. Entry No.300 dated 12.1.14
is page 7/a, para 9 of the case diary is marked as exhibit 8,
Paragraph No.11 of the case diary is marked as Exhibit 8/a, para
27 of the case diary is marked as 8/b, paragraph no.28 of the
case diary is marked as 8/c, paragraph No.66 of the case diary is
marked as Exhibit 8/d, Paragraph No. 4 of the case diary is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
5/29
marked as Exhibit 8/e, Paragraph No. 13 of the case diary is
marked as Exhibit 8f, Paragraph No.7 of the case diary is Exhit
8/g, signature of seizure list is Exhibit 1, Signature on seizure-
list is Exhibit 1/a, Signature on self statement of Informant is
Exhibit-2, Pagination on self statement is Exhibit 2/a and
signature on formal FIR is Exhibit-3. After conclusion of the
trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellants, as stated
hereinabove
8. PW 1 Bantu Sah, PW 2 Rajdeo Mahato, PW 3
Hridayalal Sah, PW 4 Jantri Mian, and PW 5 Prabhu Mahato
expressed ignorance regarding the incident during their
respective examinations-in-chief. They also stated that their
statements had not been recorded by the police in connection
with this case. Upon the request of the prosecution, these
witnesses were declared hostile. Although the prosecution
conducted their cross-examination, no material facts emerged
during the same that would support the prosecution's case.
9. PW 6, Hridaya Mahato (witness on inquest report),
during his examination-in-chief, stated that Samtola Devi
passed away six months ago. He mentioned that he arrived at
the hospital with three or four other people and found that
Samtola Devi was already dead. He further stated that the police
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
6/29
had prepared the inquest report, and his signature was affixed to
it in his presence. However, during cross-examination, this
witness admitted that he was not aware of any personal details
related to the incident.
10. PW 7, Gaya Mahato (father of deceased), in his
examination-in-chief, testified in the first part of his deposition
that Samtola Devi alias Munni Devi was his daughter and that
she had been married to Manjan Mahato three years ago. About
ten months prior to his testimony, he came to know that his
daughter had been burnt. He went to Lauriya hospital, where he
saw her in a severely burnt condition. He was transporting her
from Lauriya to Bettiah at around 3:00 AM when she
succumbed to her injuries on the way. They then returned her
body to Lauriya, where the police arrived and took necessary
action. However, this witness has further stated that he had no
information regarding how the fire had started. He was declared
hostile at the prosecution's request.
In his cross-examination, the witness testified that the
fire had started accidentally while his daughter was cooking,
and that her in-laws had not set her on fire. Furthermore, he
clarified that his daughter had never complained of any
harassment and had been living peacefully in her in-laws'
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
7/29
house.
11. PW 8, Purnima Devi, in her testimony, stated that
she had no knowledge of the incident. As a result, this witness
was declared hostile by the prosecution. During cross-
examination, nothing emerged to support the prosecution's case.
12. PW 9, Asharfi Yadav, in his examination-in-chief,
stated that Samtola Devi, the wife of Manjan Mahato, had
passed away four to five months ago. He mentioned that he had
been at the mill at the time and, upon his return, heard that she
had died due to a fire. He further stated that the Sub-Inspector
had not taken his statement. This witness was also declared
hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined. However, no
facts came to light during cross-examination that would support
the prosecution's case.
13. PW 10, Kanhaiya Yadav, was also declared hostile
by the prosecution. In his examination-in-chief, he expressed
ignorance about the incident. During cross-examination, this
witness stated in paragraph 3 that Manjan Mahato had a good
relationship with his wife.
14. PW 11, Dr. Shashikant Dubey, in his examination-
in-chief, testified that on 31.01.2014, he was posted as a
Medical Officer at M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah, West Champaran.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
8/29
On that day, the body of Munni Devi alias Samtola Devi, aged
approximately 22 years, wife of Manjan Mahato from Nankar
Delwa village, Police Station Lauriya, District West
Champaran, was brought to the hospital for post - mortem by
Jagdish Manjhi, Chowkidar 1/2 of PHC Lauriya. In paragraph
2, the witness stated that the post-mortem examination was
conducted at M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah, at 12:15 p.m. on
13.01.2014
. It was observed that rigor mortis was present in all
parts of the body. In paragraph 3, the witness noted that the
body had sustained second-degree burns, including burns to the
face, scalp, both upper limbs, back, and chest. In paragraph 4,
the witness testified that smoke particles were found in the
trachea and lungs. The heart appeared pale, and the intestines
were also pale. The approximate percentage of burns was 50%.
In paragraph 5, this witness opined that the cause of death was
hypovolemic shock, and that the burn wounds were ante-
mortem in nature. He estimated the time of death to be between
6 to 24 hours prior to the post-mortem.
During cross-examination, in paragraph 7, the witness
clarified that a 50% burn is considered life-threatening. In
paragraph 8, he further stated that he did not know the victim
prior to the post-mortem examination.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
15. PW 12, Lalan Mahato, the informant in this case,
stated in his examination-in-chief that Samtola Devi, also
known as Munni Devi, was his sister and that she had been
married to Manjan Mahato three years prior. In paragraph 2, this
witness testified that on January 12, 2014, he received a call on
his mobile phone informing him that his sister was being treated
for burns at Lauriya Hospital. Upon arriving at the hospital, he
found his sister suffering from burns and undergoing treatment.
The doctor advised him to take her to Bettiah for further
treatment. While on route from Lauriya to Bettiah by jeep, his
sister succumbed to her injuries. He then returned to Lauriya
Hospital with her body, where the police arrived. He
subsequently had an application written by Devendra Anand
and submitted it to the police. In paragraph 3, this witness stated
that, during the journey to Bettiah, his sister had told him that
Manjan Mahato, Ramuna Mahato, and Samtola Devi had
attempted to kill her by setting her on fire. In paragraph 5, this
witness identified the accused.
During cross-examination, in paragraph 6, he
admitted that he did not witness the fire himself. He further
testified that his sister was not happy in her marital home and
had frequently complained about the situation. However, in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
paragraph 7, he stated that he had visited his sister's in-laws'
house 4-5 times after her marriage and found her to be happy
during those visits. In paragraph 8, the witness revealed that
when he inquired with the person who had informed him via
mobile, he was told that his sister had been burnt in a stove fire.
In paragraph 9, he stated that during the journey from Lauriya to
Bettiah, his sister had reiterated that she was burnt due to a stove
fire. In paragraph 10, he acknowledged that he was unaware of
the contents of the application he had submitted, as the Sub-
Inspector did not read it to him.
16. PW 13, Bhrigunath Singh, the Investigating
Officer (I.O.) in this case, testified in his examination-in-chief
that on January 12, 2014, he was posted at Lauriya Police
Station. On that date, Chowkidar 1/2 Jagdish Manjhi informed
him through phone that Manjan Mahato's wife had died in
Nanhkar village, and that her family members had fled, with no
villagers offering assistance in taking her for treatment. Based
on this information, FIR No. 308, dated 12-01-14, was
registered, and the I.O. proceeded to Nanhkar for further action.
Upon arrival, he found Samtola Devi alias Munni Devi severely
burnt in her house and groaning in pain. She was loaded into the
police jeep and taken to the government hospital in Lauriya.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
During transit, the SDPO, Narkatiyaganj, was informed, and on
his direction, the Block Development Officer (BDO), Lauriya,
was requested to record her dying declaration. In paragraph 2,
the witness stated that the dying declaration of Samtola Devi
alias Munni Devi was recorded by Magistrate (Block
Agriculture Officer) Tarkeshwar Ram, which was later marked
as Exhibit 3. In paragraph 4, the I.O. testified that the deceased's
brother, Lalan Mahato, submitted a report based on which
Lauriya Police Station Case No. 514/14, dated 12.01.14, was
registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The
I.O. identified the handwriting and signature of the witness on
the written report, marked as Exhibit 4. In paragraph 7, the I.O.
described the location of the incident. Samtola Devi alias Munni
Devi was found injured in the courtyard of her ancestral house
in Nanhkar village. The room had a brick roof, and the latch on
the inner door, made of wood, was broken. However, no article
inside the house was burnt, and there were no signs of any fire
inside the room. In paragraph 13, the I.O. detailed the statement
given by Bandhu Sah, who stated that upon seeing smoke
coming from Ramuna Mahato's house, he went there and found
Ramuna Mahato's daughter-in-law (the victim) crying in the
courtyard, severely burnt. Efforts were made to extinguish the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
fire, but the victim succumbed to her burn injuries. The I.O. also
noted that Manjan Mahato had a history of abusing and
assaulting his wife.
In paragraph 21 of the cross-examination, the I.O.
explained that after receiving the information, he visited the
incident site, as described in paragraph 7. It was mentioned that
the door was locked from inside, and after the latch was broken,
the door opened. Villagers then arrived and provided
information regarding the scene. In paragraph 22, the I.O.
confirmed that the door of the room was found broken in his
presence. In paragraph 28, the I.O. testified that the deceased
was almost 100% burnt from bottom to top. In paragraph 31,
the I.O. stated that the statement of the deceased's mother-in-
law was recorded in paragraph 2 of the case diary. According to
the mother-in-law's statement, Manjan Mahato had beaten his
wife and, in a fit of rage, she set herself on fire, thenthe door
was broken and she was taken out. In paragraph 34, the I.O.
noted that the statement of the treating doctor had not been
recorded. In paragraph 35, the I.O. stated that statements taken
by the officer from the Block Development Office were not
recorded.
17. PW 14, Shri Tarakeshwar Ram, testified in his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
examination-in-chief that on January 12, 2014, he was posted as
the Block Agriculture Officer in Lauriya Block. On that day, he
recorded the dying declaration of Samtola Devi alias Munni
Devi at the Lauriya Primary Health Centre. He wrote the
statement in his own handwriting as narrated by Samtola Devi.
While recording the dying declaration, Sub-Inspector
Bhrigunath Singh was present. He read out the dying
declaration to Samtola Devi and made her affix her thumb
impression on it. Both his signature and Sub-Inspector
Bhrigunath Singh's signature appear on the document, which
has been marked as Exhibit 3.
In paragraph 2 of his cross-examination, the witness
admitted that he had written in the last line of the statement that
the victim could not narrate the entire incident. He also stated
that he did not remember whether a doctor was present at the
time of recording the statement. In paragraph 3, the witness
clarified that he did not obtain any certificate from a doctor
regarding the victim's mental condition to confirm her fitness to
give a statement. He further stated that he took the statement
based on the oral order of the Block Development Officer
(BDO), Lauriya Block, and that he did not receive a formal
order for recording the statement. In paragraph 5, the witness
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
stated that the victim had sustained 90 percent burns and was
lying on her back with very little hair left on her face. He asked
the victim whether she was in a fit state to give a statement but
did not mention this in the recorded statement. The witness also
stated that it was incorrect to claim that he took the victim's
dying declaration without authority, and he denied that he wrote
the statement at the behest of the police. He further denied the
allegation that the victim was not fit to give a statement at the
time.
18. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is unsustainable
either in law or on facts. The learned trial court failed to
properly appreciate, assess, and evaluate the evidence available
on record. A proper consideration of the same would have led to
the acquittal of the appellants. It has been submitted that out of
fourteen prosecution witnesses examined in the case, P.Ws. 1 to
10 have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution
version. The informant, P.W.-12, Lalan Mahto, himself stated
that the deceased appeared happy in her matrimonial home, and
that he was informed she had died of burn injuries caused by a
stove. The evidence further discloses that the deceased herself
stated that she sustained burn injuries from the stove.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
19. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits
that P.W.-13, the Investigating Officer, deposed that appellant
no. 2 had stated the deceased burnt herself following a quarrel
with her husband and that she was rescued by villagers after
breaking open the door. The treating doctor was not examined,
nor was the officer who allegedly recorded the dying
declaration. It is well settled that conviction cannot rest upon an
uncorroborated and shaky dying declaration. The Investigating
Officer also noted in paragraph 7 of the case diary that the door
of the room in which the deceased was found injured had been
broken open by villagers to save her, further supporting the
possibility of suicide rather than homicide.
20. Learned counsel further submits that P.W.-14, the
Block Agriculture Officer, who purportedly recorded the dying
declaration, admitted that no doctor was present at the time, nor
was any medical certificate obtained regarding the fitness of the
deceased to make such a statement. He was not authorized by
any competent authority to record it, nor did he follow the
questionnaire method. The authenticity and reliability of such a
statement are therefore doubtful.
21. Learned counsel further submits that the
investigation initially found the case true under Section 306
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
IPC. However, without proper appreciation of the factual
circumstances suggesting suicide due to domestic discord,
cognizance was erroneously taken under Sections 302/34 IPC.
Even the evidence recorded during trial supports the inference
that the deceased committed suicide after bolting herself inside
the room, from where she was later rescued by breaking open
the door. There is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence, and
the circumstantial evidence on record does not unerringly point
to the guilt of the appellants. The evidence of the prosecution
witnesses suffers from material contradictions and
inconsistencies, rendering their testimony unreliable.
22. At the time of conclusion of his arguments,
learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon a
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Saurav Sharma @ Saurav Kumar Sharma @ Saurabha
Kumar Sharma @ Mukul Sharma and Anr. vs. The State of
Bihar, in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1271 of 2017, decided on
13.08.2024. Learned counsel further submitted that paragraph
12 of the said judgment contains a list of the decisions
discussed therein, which are reproduced as under:
(i) Abhishek Sharma Vs. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi), reported in AIR 2023 SC 5271;
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
(ii) Uttam Vs. The State of Maharashtra,
reported in (2022) 8 SCC 576;
(iii) Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Delhi,
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1641;
(iv) Sardar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
reported in (1954) 2 SCC 214;
(v) Jan Mohammad and Another Vs. State
of Bihar, reported in (1953) 1 SCC 5;
(vi) Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (2002) 6 SCC 710;
(vii) Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr. Vs. State
of Gujarat, reported in (1999) 9 SCC 562;
(viii) P.V. Radhakrishna Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 443.
23. Paragraph 41 of the aforesaid judgment contains
the findings and extracts from various decisions wherein the
fundamental principles applicable to dying declarations have
been discussed.
24. Learned counsel for the appellants further
submits that the alleged dying declaration cannot be treated as a
genuine dying declaration, as it suffers from several defects. In
particular, it has not been recorded as a statement of the injured
who subsequently died, as is evident from the record of the
alleged dying declaration, which is marked as Exhibit-3.
25. On the contrary, the learned Additional Public
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
Prosecutor (APP) for the State submits that a total of 14
witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW
1, Gaya Mahato, the father of the deceased, has testified
regarding the death of his daughter due to burns. The informant,
Lalan Mahato (PW 12), has fully supported the incident in his
examination-in-chief. In paragraph 3 of his testimony, he stated
that, during transport, his sister made a statement indicating that
Manjan Mahato, Ramuna Mahato, and Samtola Devi attempted
to kill her by setting her on fire. This fact was also corroborated
by the testimony of this witness during cross-examination at
paragraph -6, that his sister did not live happily with her
husband and frequently complained about the conditions at her
in-laws' house. The learned APP also highlighted that the dying
declaration of the deceased, Munni Devi alias Samtola Devi,
was recorded by the Block Agriculture Officer. It is evident
from the dying declaration that the victim clearly stated before
her death that her husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-law
have set her on fire.
26. The learned APP further contends that the doctor's
certificate on the dying declaration, which attests to the victim
being in a sound mental state before her death, is not tenable.
The learned APP also argues that the fact that the dying
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
declaration was not written in response to a supporting reply
does not render it inadmissible. In this case, the formal FIR was
filed under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, but after investigation,
the charge sheet was submitted under Section 306 of the IPC.
Despite this, charges have been framed against the accused
under Section 302/34 of the IPC. The investigating officer, PW
13, has testified that the latch inside the house was made of
wood and was found broken, though no evidence has been
presented by the prosecution to corroborate this statement.
Thus, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are
well-founded and do not warrant any interference.
27. Upon hearing the parties and after perusal of the
records, we have observed that in the present appeal, a total of
14 witnesses were produced by the prosecution and 8 exhibits
were brought on record. Among these, the most important is
Exhibit-2, the alleged dying declaration of the victim, which has
been made the sole basis for the conviction and sentence in the
present case, against which this appeal has been preferred.
28. From the record, it transpires that PW-1, PW-2,
PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10
have turned hostile. PW 6 is an inquest witness, but in his cross-
examination, he deposed that he had no knowledge of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
incident. PW 11 is the doctor of MJK Hospital, Bettiah, who
conducted the post-mortem examination and opined that the
death had occurred due to hypovolemic shock. He further
opined that the burn injuries were ante-mortem in nature and
that death had occurred within 6 to 24 hours prior to the post-
mortem examination. PW 12, the brother of the deceased, in his
cross-examination (paragraph 8), deposed that he had received
information that his sister died due to a stove fire. In paragraph
7, he stated that after his sister's marriage, whenever he visited
her matrimonial home, she appeared to be happy. In paragraph
9, he further stated that while he was carrying his sister from
Lauriya to Bettiah, she disclosed to him that she had sustained
burn injuries due to a stove fire. PW 13 is the Investigating
Officer in whose presence the dying declaration was recorded,
and he is also one of the witnesses to it. The said dying
declaration was recorded by PW 14, Tarkeshwar Ram, Block
Agriculture Officer, Lauriya. In paragraph 6 of his deposition,
PW 13 deposed that he did not witness the incident of fire
himself. In paragraph 7, he stated that the room had a brick
roof and that the inner wooden latch of the door was broken. In
paragraph 21 of his cross-examination, it emerged that the door
was locked from inside, and after the latch was broken, the door
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
opened, whereupon the villagers arrived and informed him
about the occurrence. In paragraph 22, the Investigating Officer
confirmed that the door of the room was found broken in his
presence and that the deceased had sustained almost 100% burn
injuries from head to toe. In paragraph 34 of his cross-
examination, it was revealed that the statement of the treating
doctor was not recorded, and in paragraph 35, he admitted that
the statement of the Block Agriculture Officer was also not
recorded during investigation.
29. Upon further perusal of the evidence of PW 14,
Tarkeshwar Ram, Block Agriculture Officer, Lauriya, who
recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Samtola Devi at
Lauriya Primary Health Centre, it appears that he deposed that
the dying declaration was written by him in his own
handwriting as narrated by Samtola Devi. He also stated that
Sub-Inspector Bhrigunath Singh (PW 13) was present at that
time. He further deposed that he read over the dying declaration
to Samtola Devi and obtained her thumb impression thereon,
after which both PW 14 and PW 13 signed the document, which
has been marked as Exhibit-3. However, in his cross-
examination, PW 14 stated that the victim could not narrate the
entire incident. He also admitted that he did not remember
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
whether any doctor was present at the time of recording the
statement. Furthermore, as per paragraph 3 of his deposition, he
did not obtain any certificate from the doctor regarding the
victim's mental condition to confirm her fitness to give the
statement.
30. Upon perusal of the judgment rendered in the case
of Saurav Sharma (supra), relied upon by the appellants, it
transpires to this Court that paragraph 41 of the said judgment
contains the findings and extracts from various decisions
mentioned in paragraph 12 wherein the fundamental principles
applicable to dying declarations have been discussed, as under :
(1) Each dying declaration must be
scrutinized on its own merits. The Court has to
examine upon which of the statements reliance
can be placed in order for the case to proceed
further. Medical fitness of the person making such
declaration, at the relevant time, assumes
importance along with other factors such as
possibility of tutoring by the relatives etc.;
(2) If the Court is satisfied that the
dying declaration is true and trustworthy, it can
base conviction upon it without corroboration.;
(3) The Court has to scrutinize the
dying declaration carefully and must ensure that
the declaration is not the result of tutoring,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
prompting or imagination and the declarant was
in a fit state to make the declaration.;
(4) Where the deceased was
unconscious and could never make any dying
declaration, the evidence with regard to it is to be
rejected.;
(5) Where the prosecution version
differs from the version as given in the dying
declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted
upon.;
(6) The Court, in order to satisfy
whether deceasedwas in a fit mental condition to
make the dying declaration, look up to the
medical opinion, but where eye-witnesses state
that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state
to make the declaration, the medical opinion will
not prevail.
(7) The Magistrate being a
disinterested witness and a responsible officer
and there being no circumstances or material to
suspect that the Magistrate had any animus
against the accused or was in any way interested
in fabricating a dying declaration, question of
doubt in declaration recorded by the Magistrate
does not arise."
Subsequently, the finding has been recorded in
paragraph 41, 43 to 45 of the said judgement, which reads as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
under :-
"41. Keeping in view the aforesaid
decisions and the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions, if
the facts as discussed hereinabove are examined,
it would reveal that, in the present case, the
prosecution-witnesses have deposed before the
Court with regard to the version of Kamala Devi
(deceased) stated before them immediately after
the occurrence took place. One of the witnesses
stated that appellant No.2 poured boiling water
on Kamala Devi and thereafter appellant No.1
Mukul set the house on fire. There is no evidence
from where appellant No.2 brought the boiling
water. When it was a foggy cold night, at about
1- 1:30 a.m., when the incident took place, what
was the source of light to identify the accused is
also not brought on record. Further, the incident
took place in the 1-2 room house and when
Sarang Dhar died on the spot in the incident
Kamala Devi also sustained serious burn injuries
and, therefore, when she was taken to the
hospital whether she was conscious or not. The
dying declaration, in the form of fardbeyan
contains minute details, including the dispute
with regard to land as well as the incident which
took place 15-20 days prior to the incident. In the
fardbeyan Kamala Devi said that when she tried
to save her husband, she also sustained burn
injuries whereas the witnesses have stated a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
different story. Dying declaration given by
Kamala Devi before the Executive Magistrate
contains the exactly similar details which is not
possible when the person has sustained serious
burn injuries. From the deposition of the
Executive Magistrate, it is revealed that when he
reached to the hospital, the Investigating Officer
narrated the entire story to him and while
recording the dying declaration of the injured
Kamala Devi, villagers were also present.
Therefore also, there are all chances of tutoring.
43. Surprisingly, the dying declaration
of the deceased was recorded by the Investigating
Officer and the Executive Magistrate has merely
signed the same. Even there are two versions
with regard to the recording of dying declaration.
At one place it is stated that the Investigating
Officer has recorded the dying declaration
whereas at another place the Executive
Magistrate has stated that the dying declaration
is in his handwriting. Thus, it raises serious
doubt. The dying declarations recorded by the
Executive Magistrate is not in question-answer
format. Ordinarily it should be in the question-
answer format.
44. It is the specific defence of the
accused (appellant No.1) in the statement under
Section-313 of Cr.P.C. that he has been falsely
implicated by his brother, uncle and Najo Yadav
because of the land-dispute and they wanted to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
grab the land. Admittedly, after the death of the
parents, the aforesaid three persons have taken
over the possession of the land.
45. Thus, looking to the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the present case and the
evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the
view that we cannot simply rely upon the dying
declarations given by the deceased Kamala Devi
to the police as well as to the Executive
Magistrate. 46. Thus, from the aforesaid
deposition of the prosecution-witnesses, we are of
the view that there are major contradictions,
inconsistencies and improvements in the
deposition of the prosecution-witnesses. 47. Thus,
the prosecution has failed to prove its case
against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt,
despite which the Trial Court has recorded the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence
which require to be quashed and set aside."
31. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions and the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
various judgments mentioned above, as well as from the facts
discussed in the present appeal, it is revealed that in this case,
there are in total 14 prosecution witnesses, out of which the
evidence of 10 prosecution witnesses is of no value as they have
turned hostile. The evidence of the doctor who conducted the
post-mortem has only indicated the cause of death, while the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-13) and the recorder
of the alleged dying declaration (PW-14) is most relevant. The
recorder of the dying declaration, in his cross-examination, has
deposed that the victim could not narrate the entire incident, and
he did not obtain any certificate from the doctor regarding the
victim's mental condition to confirm her fitness to give a
statement. He further stated that he did not remember whether
the doctor was present at the time of recording the statement or
not. Although he claimed to have asked the victim whether she
was in a fit state to give a statement, though this fact was not
mentioned in the recorded statement.
32. On the other hand, the brother of the victim, who
is also the informant in this case, has deposed in his cross-
examination that while he was carrying his sister from Lauriya
to Bettiah, she disclosed to him that she was burnt by a stove.
33. Surprisingly, the dying declaration of the
deceased was recorded by the Block Agriculture Officer and
signed by the Investigating Officer, yet contradictions are
apparent in their testimonies before the Court. The Investigating
Officer deposed that the room in which the dead body was
found was locked from inside and had to be broken open in the
presence of villagers. PW-14, the Block Agriculture Officer
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
who recorded the dying declaration, admitted that no doctor was
present at the time of recording, nor was any medical certificate
obtained regarding the fitness of the deceased to make such a
statement either by a doctor or by himself. Therefore, it raises
serious doubt about the genuineness of the dying declaration.
Furthermore, the dying declaration was not recorded in a
question-and-answer format, which ordinarily should have been
the case.
34. On the basis of the discussions made above and
the evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the view that
there exist major contradictions, inconsistencies, and
improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses
particularly PW 13 and PW 14. Thus, the prosecution has failed
to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable
doubt. Despite this, the learned Trial Court recorded the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which are
unsustainable in law and, therefore, are liable to be quashed and
set aside.
35. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of
Conviction dated 2nd March, 2016, and the Order of Sentence
dated 5th March, 2016, passed by the learned 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Sessions Trial No.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.285 of 2016 dt. 16-10-2025
555 of 2014 arising out of Lauriya P.S. Case No. 05 of 2014
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 139 of 2004, are hereby
quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the
charges levelled against them by the learned Trial Court.
36. Since appellant no. 1, Manjan Mahto, is presently
in judicial custody, he is directed to be released forthwith from
jail, if not required in connection with any other case. So far as
appellant no. 2, Samtola Devi, wife of Ramuna Mahto, is
concerned, since she is on bail, her bail bond stands cancelled
and the sureties are hereby discharged from their liabilities.
37. In result, the appeal stands allowed. Accordingly,
Interlocutory Application No. 01/2024 also stands disposed of,
having become infructuous.
Bibek Chaudhuri, J :- I agree.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
( Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 09.10.2025
Uploading Date 16/10/2025
Transmission Date 16/10/2025
