Supreme Court Quashes Convictions in Multi‑Accused Factional Murder, Finds FIR Unreliable and Prosecution Case Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard appeals by convicted members of an alleged unlawful assembly arising from violent clashes over settlement land in Katihar, Bihar, challenging the High Court's 2013 affirmation of convictions under Sections 302 and 149 IPC. The appeals concerned whether the prosecution had proved individual participation or shared "common object" beyond reasonable doubt and whether the hospital statement of an injured witness could be treated as the first information report.

The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution had not discharged its burden of proof. The Court noted important evidentiary lacunae, material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical records, and serious doubts about the circumstances in which the informant’s statement was recorded and treated as an FIR. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "From the foregoing, it appears that the statement of the PW‑20 could not have been treated as the FIR, since the first information about the occurrence had already reached the police prior to the recording of the statement of the PW‑20 and lodging of the FIR. Resultantly, the statement of PW‑20 becomes a police statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC." The judgment emphasised that constructive liability under Section 149 could not be stretched to rope in bystanders without cogent direct or indirect material showing they shared the assembly’s common object.

Background The prosecution case arose from an early‑morning incident on 20 November 1988 in which two persons (Meghu and Sarjug Mahto) died and five others suffered injuries during a large clash on a parcha (settlement) land. An injured eyewitness, Jagdish Mahto (PW‑20), gave a detailed statement at hospital which was later reduced into an FIR naming some 72 persons; the charge‑sheet ultimately prosecuted 24 accused. Trial evidence included testimony of five injured eyewitnesses, medical reports, inquest and seizure lists; the Trial Court convicted 21 persons and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Patna High Court partly allowed appeals and acquitted several accused while upholding convictions of others.

On appeal to the Supreme Court the State relied on the injuries and the weapons carried by the mob to establish a common object to dispossess the settled claimants; appellants emphasised timing discrepancies, contradictions in witness statements, the possibility of passive onlookers being wrongly implicated, and that the hospital statement was not the true FIR. The Court reviewed authorities on Section 149 IPC and the rule of prudence in multi‑accused, factional incidents, and examined conflicts between ocular accounts and medical evidence. It quoted Trial Court findings on medical corroboration but found the eyewitness testimony materially inconsistent—some injured witnesses admitted falling unconscious and being unable to name assailants, yet the hospital statement attributed numerous identifications to them. The Court concluded the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for several accused and observed that the hospital statement could not reliably serve as the first information report where earlier information had reached police and police records (roznamcha/OD entries) were not produced. The appeals succeeded and the remaining appellants were acquitted; their bail bonds were discharged.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1187‑1188 of 2014 Case Title: Zainul v. State of Bihar; Sattar & Ors. v. State of Bihar Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rauf Rahim (Senior Counsel) and Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh (Senior Counsel) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Divyansh Mishra (Counsel for the State of Bihar)