Case Background
The case started with Hayaghat P.S. Case No.104 of 2009, District Darbhanga, registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The FIR was based on the fardbeyan of Muni Devi, wife of Triweni Sahni. Her statement was recorded by Sub-Inspector M.P. Singh, the Station House Officer of Hayaghat Police Station, on 11.12.2009 at 10:00 a.m. in village Akaraha.
In her fardbeyan, she alleged that on 11.12.2009 at about 6:30 a.m., while she was pressing the waist of her mother Jiwacchi Devi in a room of their house, her cousin brother, the appellant, entered armed with a dagger.
According to her, the appellant began uttering “rubbish” and threatened to eliminate all of them. Frightened, she hid herself under a chowki (cot). She stated that the appellant noticed her, made her come out, and then attacked her mother.
She alleged that he pushed her mother by kicking, climbed on her chest and assaulted her with the dagger, slitting her from the chest down to the abdomen and then gouging out both her eyes with the same weapon.
After committing this brutal assault, he allegedly went out into the courtyard, continued uttering incoherent words, and the informant raised an alarm. Villagers gathered, witnessed the situation, and caught hold of the appellant, tying him to a tree.
After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. The Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. It was finally tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.186 of 2010.
On 24.01.2012, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and on 25.01.2012 sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default.
Challenging this conviction and sentence, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal (DB) No.245 of 2012 before the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prakash Chandra Jaiswal heard the appeal. The central question was whether the prosecution had proved the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
The defence argued that the prosecution evidence was weak because most witnesses, including close relatives, turned hostile. They pointed out that the son and daughter-in-law of the informant, who were allegedly sleeping in an adjacent room, did not support the prosecution version and were declared hostile.
It was also argued that all other material prosecution witnesses, except the informant, had turned hostile, and therefore there was no consistent eyewitness account. According to the defence, the informant was actually in her marital home at the time of occurrence and was not present at the scene, so she could not be an eyewitness.
Further, the defence highlighted that the fardbeyan itself mentioned that the appellant was “uttering rubbish” at the time of the incident, suggesting that he was under the influence of some “super power” or was mentally unsound. They submitted that the extremely brutal nature of the assault showed that a sane person could not have committed such an act, and therefore the benefit of Section 84 IPC (act of a person of unsound mind) should be extended to him.
To support this plea, the defence relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Siddhapal Kamala Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2009 SC 97.
The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeal. It was argued that the informant, as an eyewitness, had fully supported the prosecution case. Her testimony, it was submitted, was natural, consistent and trustworthy, and there was no reason to doubt her presence or account.
The State further relied on corroborative evidence: the medical evidence of the post-mortem doctor, recovery of bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence, and seizure of the bloodstained dagger at the instance of the appellant. The FSL report showed human blood on both the soil and the knife, thereby supporting the prosecution version.
The High Court carefully examined the record and noted that the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses, including 13 material witnesses. Except the informant (P.W.16), all material witnesses turned hostile.
However, when the Bench analysed the testimony of the informant, it found that she repeated in her deposition the same facts stated in her fardbeyan. She said that she was pressing her mother’s waist in the room when the appellant entered, slapped her mother, causing her to fall, then took out a dagger. She hid under the chowki in fear and from there saw him climb onto her mother’s chest, slit her chest with the dagger, and later re-enter the room to gouge out her eyes with the same weapon.
She also described how he went out into the courtyard and then chased another woman, trying to assault her.
The Court noted that the informant faced intense cross-examination, but nothing substantial came out to show she was not present at the scene or that she had not seen the occurrence. The Bench observed that she “stood the test of cross-examination tenaciously.”
The High Court held that her evidence was unblemished and wholly reliable. She was a solitary eyewitness, but the Court reminded that it is a settled principle of law that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness where that witness is found trustworthy and reliable.
Next, the Court examined the medical evidence. Dr. D.K. Dheeraj (P.W.14), who had conducted the post-mortem, and his report (Ext.6) detailed two sets of injuries: both eyes were removed from the sockets with clear wound margins and blood infiltration, and a series of deep incised wounds running across the chest and ribs, breaking ribs and cutting the sternum and cartilages, entering the chest cavity.
The doctor found that the heart had been removed by cutting the pericardium and vascular connections with a sharp weapon, along with a portion of the right lung. These findings matched the informant’s description of the attack, including the chest-slitting and eye-gouging by a dagger.
The Court concluded that the medical evidence strongly corroborated the ocular version given by the informant.
The High Court then turned to the investigation evidence. The Investigating Officer, Mritunjay Prasad Singh (P.W.13), stated that he recovered bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence and a bloodstained knife from about 300 yards west of the place of occurrence on the disclosure of the appellant, in presence of seizure list witnesses.
Although seizure witnesses Gangu Yadav (P.W.3), Dashrath Sahni (P.W.7) and Veneet Yadav (P.W.17) turned hostile, they admitted their signatures on the seizure lists (marked as Ext.1 series). The material exhibits, the soil and the dagger, were produced in court by Chaukidar Khageshwar Rai (P.W.15) as Material Exts. 1 and 2.
The I.O. had sent these to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The FSL reports (Exts. 7 and 7/1) recorded that human blood was found on both the soil and the knife. The Court treated this as strong objective evidence linking the weapon and the crime scene to the offence.
On the defence plea of insanity, the Bench made several important findings. It noted that in the Supreme Court case relied upon by the appellant, the accused had been admitted for treatment with a complaint that he was behaving like a lunatic and murmuring to himself.
In contrast, in the present case, the appellant had never taken a formal plea of unsoundness of mind before the trial court. He was not shown to have been admitted for any mental ailment.
The Court observed that the appellant did not raise the defence of unsound mind even at the time of his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also did not bring any medical evidence of treatment for mental illness or apply for examination by a Medical Board.
Further, the defence witness Baleshwar Thakur (D.W.1) did not support any theory of mental illness. Instead, D.W.1 claimed there had been a quarrel between the informant and her mother over the informant’s second marriage, suggesting a different background, but he said nothing about the appellant being of unsound mind.
Given this, the High Court held that mere allegation that the appellant was “uttering rubbish” at the time of occurrence, or that the crime was brutal, was not enough to invoke Section 84 IPC. There was no material to show that, at the time of the act, the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law.
After reviewing all evidence, the Bench concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the charge under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt through consistent, reliable ocular evidence from the informant, supported by medical and forensic evidence and the investigation on the spot.
Finding no error in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence, the Patna High Court held that the conviction and sentence did not require any interference.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment with fine were affirmed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment shows that even if many witnesses turn hostile, a conviction can still be upheld if one eyewitness is found fully reliable and is supported by medical and scientific evidence.
For victims and their families, it underlines that courts can deliver justice even when some villagers or relatives change their statements later.
The decision also makes clear that claiming insanity is not enough; the accused must bring some concrete proof of mental illness or behaviour to get protection under Section 84 IPC.
For lawyers and trial courts in Bihar, the case highlights the importance of carefully recording and testing the testimony of solitary eyewitnesses, and of supporting such testimony with forensic and medical corroboration wherever possible.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant murdered the deceased under Section 302 IPC?
Answer: Yes. The Court held that the solitary eyewitness (the informant), corroborated by medical evidence, FSL reports, and recovery of the weapon, proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue: Was the appellant entitled to the defence of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 IPC?
Answer: No. The Court held that there was no plea or evidence of mental illness, no medical record, and no conduct on record sufficient to attract Section 84 IPC.
Issue: Should the conviction fail because most prosecution witnesses and seizure witnesses turned hostile?
Answer: No. The Court held that hostility of other witnesses did not affect the reliable testimony of the informant or the objective medical and forensic evidence.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The appellant relied on Siddhapal Kamala Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 97, but the Patna High Court held that the facts of that case were different and the ruling did not apply here.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No.245 of 2012; arising out of Hayaghat P.S. Case No.104 of 2009; Sessions Trial No.186 of 2010
Case Title: Kuseshwar Sahani @ Kushaiya Sahani @ Kushaiya v. State of Bihar
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prakash Chandra Jaiswal
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 16.01.2019
Citation: 2019 (3) PLJR 326
Advocates: Mr. Nawal Kishor Prasad, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. S.N. Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
Statutory Provisions Involved: Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 84 IPC (pleaded but rejected); Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Nature of Case: Criminal appeal (Division Bench) against conviction and sentence for murder passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Darbhanga
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 302 IPC and life sentence with fine of Rs.10,000/- affirmed
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.245 of 2012
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
