Case Background
This case arose from a tragic incident in village Pandh, P.S. Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur. On the evening of 02.06.2018, a three‑year‑old girl went missing while grazing goats with her minor uncle, aged about seven years.
The child’s mother stated that around 6:00 p.m. the appellant took the girl away in his lap from a field. Family members and villagers searched for the girl throughout the night. Police from Dalsingsarai Police Station also came to the village and joined the search.
The next morning, at about 5:00 a.m. on 03.06.2018, villagers informed the family that the child’s dead body was lying in a field belonging to one Md. Taiyab Mian. Her clothes were blood‑stained and her genitalia appeared badly injured.
On the basis of the mother’s oral statement (fardbeyan) recorded by an Assistant Sub‑Inspector at 7:15 a.m. on 03.06.2018, Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No.150 of 2018 was instituted the same day at 9:00 a.m. under Sections 376, 302, 201 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Investigation was first conducted by Sub‑Inspector Braj Kishore Singh and later by Sub‑Inspector Sunil Kumar. A charge‑sheet (No.157 of 2018) was filed on 25.07.2018 against the appellant for offences under Sections 376‑A(2), 302, 201 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
The Additional Sessions Judge‑6th‑cum‑Special Court (POCSO), Samastipur, took cognizance, framed charges under Sections 376 and 302 IPC and Section 6 POCSO on 20.08.2018, and proceeded with the trial (Tr. No.154 of 2020, R.G. No.535 of 2018).
After trial, the Special Court held the appellant guilty under Sections 302 and 376‑A(2) IPC and Section 6 POCSO. A composite sentence of death was imposed for all three offences by judgment dated 16.12.2020 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2020. As required by law, the death sentence was sent to the Patna High Court for confirmation (Death Reference No.1 of 2021).
The appellant filed Criminal Appeal (DB) No.140 of 2021 challenging his conviction and sentence. The Patna High Court heard the death reference and the criminal appeal together and delivered a common judgment on 12.01.2022.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The High Court focused on two broad questions:
(i) Whether the evidence legally proved that the appellant had sexually assaulted and murdered the child; and
(ii) Whether the investigation and prosecution were reliable enough to support a conviction, especially when the accused was facing the death penalty.
The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the child’s mother, grandmother, maternal uncle, another villager, the two investigating officers, and the doctor who conducted the postmortem. Several documents were also proved, such as the postmortem report and statements under Section 164 CrPC.
The Court first noted that the medical evidence clearly showed that the child had suffered serious injuries: lacerated wound on the right eyebrow, swelling on the forehead and scalp, lacerated wound at the vaginal introitus with oedema of labia minora, and a fractured frontal bone with blood clots in the cranial cavity. The medical board opined there was evidence of sexual assault and that death was due to haemorrhage, brain injury and shock.
However, even though the death and sexual assault were clearly proved, the critical issue was whether the appellant was the person who committed these acts.
Several key prosecution witnesses admitted under cross‑examination that they did not know the appellant before the incident:
– The child’s maternal uncle (P.W.1) said he came to know of the appellant’s identity only when the police showed him a photograph.
– The child’s mother (P.W.2) admitted she did not know the appellant earlier and only heard his name from her brother.
– The child witness Amarjeet (P.W.4) admitted that he saw the appellant for the first time in court, that the police told him the accused’s name, and that he merely repeated what the police had told him. He could not even state his age when the court asked.
– The grandmother (P.W.3) also accepted that she did not know the appellant earlier and learnt his name from the police after the incident.
The High Court held that these admissions seriously weakened the prosecution case. If the witnesses had no prior familiarity with the accused and were told his name by the police, their claims of having “seen the accused take away the child” became doubtful. The Court found their testimonies inconsistent and unreliable.
The Court also criticised the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP). Since the prosecution witnesses did not know the appellant earlier, it was necessary to place the accused in a TIP so they could identify him outside court. Instead, he was not subjected to TIP and was first identified in the dock during trial. The Court termed such dock identification, without prior TIP, as a “weak type of evidence”.
The second major area of concern was the handling of the First Information Report (FIR):
– Evidence showed that the police were informed of the child’s kidnapping and disappearance on the night of 02.06.2018. The police arrived in the village the same night and searched for both the victim and the accused.
– Despite this, the FIR was not registered that night. It was formally lodged only at 9:00 a.m. on 03.06.2018, after the child’s dead body had been found in the morning and after the police had already started investigation activities.
– The postmortem report prepared at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur on 03.06.2018 (body received at 11:05 a.m., postmortem at 11:15 a.m.) did not mention the police case number, even though the FIR was said to have been registered earlier that morning.
The Court relied on earlier Supreme Court rulings which say that unexplained delay in lodging an FIR or sending it to the Magistrate can make the prosecution story doubtful. It observed that in this case the Station House Officer (SHO) deliberately failed to register the FIR on receiving clear information about a serious cognizable offence and started investigation activities even before registration.
According to the High Court, this sequence suggested that the FIR was “ante‑dated and ante‑timed”. The Court viewed the investigation as “tainted” because:
– The FIR was delayed without explanation.
– The FIR number was missing in the postmortem report.
– Crucial police officials, including the ASI who recorded the fardbeyan, the chowkidar who took the body to hospital, and both investigating officers, were not examined at trial.
Because these officials were not examined, the defence had no opportunity to cross‑examine them or challenge the manner in which the investigation had been conducted. This, the Court held, prejudiced the defence.
The Court further held that the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Applying the settled legal tests for conviction on such evidence, as laid down by the Supreme Court in cases like Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade, Padala Veera Reddy and Bhagat Ram, the Court concluded that the necessary chain of circumstances was not established.
Key missing links included:
– No reliable evidence that the appellant was present in the village at the time of occurrence.
– No dependable “last seen” evidence, because the “last seen” story itself rested on witnesses who were not credible.
– Serious inconsistencies and admissions in cross‑examination that undercut the prosecution story.
On the defence side, five witnesses, including the appellant’s father and maternal grandfather, testified that the appellant usually lived at his maternal grandparents’ village, not in the incident village, and that he had land disputes with his co‑sharers, suggesting a motive for false implication. The Court noted that this evidence created serious doubt whether the appellant could have been present at the place and time alleged.
After reviewing the entire material, the Patna High Court held that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Though the alleged crime was “gruesome and revolts the conscience”, the Court emphasised that harshness of the allegation cannot replace the need for legal evidence. In the absence of such evidence, conviction — especially a death sentence — cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the High Court:
– Allowed Criminal Appeal (DB) No.140 of 2021.
– Set aside the conviction judgment dated 16.12.2020 and the death sentence order dated 19.12.2020.
– Acquitted the appellant of all charges and directed his immediate release unless required in any other case.
– Rejected Death Reference No.1 of 2021, meaning the death sentence was not confirmed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment has important practical implications for both victims’ families and accused persons in serious criminal cases.
First, it shows that even in the most disturbing and emotional cases, the High Court will not confirm a conviction, especially a death sentence, unless the prosecution presents reliable, legally admissible evidence that clearly connects the accused to the crime.
Second, it exposes serious procedural lapses by the police:
– Delay in registering an FIR even after getting clear information of a grave offence.
– Starting investigation and searching without first registering a case.
– Not recording the FIR number in medical documents like the postmortem report.
– Failing to produce key police witnesses (ASI, chowkidar, SHO, investigating officers) in court for cross‑examination.
For ordinary citizens, this means that if the police delay FIR registration, do not do proper investigation, or manipulate paperwork, the entire criminal case can collapse at the High Court stage. The person accused may then be acquitted because the prosecution story is unreliable.
For investigating officers and trial courts, the judgment is a reminder that:
– Test Identification Parade (TIP) is essential where witnesses do not know the accused earlier.
– Child witnesses must be carefully examined to ensure they understand the questions and are not tutored.
– Initial information and all key officials involved in investigation must be placed before the trial court.
For lawyers and litigants, the ruling underscores that delay in FIR, missing witnesses, and dock identification without TIP can form strong grounds for acquittal in appeal, particularly in cases where death penalty has been imposed without solid evidence.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant raped and murdered the minor victim?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that witness testimonies were inconsistent and unreliable, essential links in the chain of circumstantial evidence were missing, and therefore the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue: Was the police investigation and handling of the FIR legally sound?
Answer: No. The Court found unjustified delay in registering the FIR, absence of FIR number in the postmortem report, failure to examine crucial police witnesses, non‑conduct of Test Identification Parade, and investigation commenced before FIR registration. The investigation was termed “tainted”.
Issue: Should the death sentence awarded by the trial court be confirmed?
Answer: No. Since the conviction itself was unsustainable for want of legal evidence, the High Court set aside both conviction and death sentence and rejected the death reference.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu and Ors., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590
- Mukesh and Ors. v. NCT of Delhi and Ors., (2017) 6 SCC 1
- Ram Jag and Ors. v. State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 201
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
- Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793
- Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706
- Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621
Case Details
Case Number(s):
Death Reference No.1 of 2021
with Criminal Appeal (DB) No.140 of 2021
arising out of Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No.150 of 2018
Case Title:
The State of Bihar v. Ram Lal Mahto (Death Reference)
Ram Lal Mahto v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal)
Citation:
2022 (1) PLJR 541
Court:
High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava
Date of Judgment:
12.01.2022
Advocates:
In Death Reference No.1 of 2021:
For the Petitioner (State): Not specified in the judgment (xxxxx)
For the Respondent (Accused): Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Amicus Curiae
In Criminal Appeal (DB) No.140 of 2021:
For the Appellant (Accused): Mr. Subodh Prasad, Advocate; Mr. Kapil Deo Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent (State): Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, Additional Public Prosecutor
Nature of the Case:
Death Reference under Section 366 CrPC for confirmation of death sentence along with criminal appeal against conviction and sentence arising from a sessions trial under IPC and POCSO.
Result:
Conviction and death sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges; death reference rejected.
Link to Full Judgment:
Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
