'Aggressors Meet Tragic End For Adharm': Patna High Court Invokes 'Mahabharat' To Confirm Death Sentence In Triple Murder Case

The Patna High Court recently upheld the conviction and death sentence awarded to two accused persons for the murder of three people in connection with a land dispute. Invoking the theme of the great epic Mahabharata, one of the judges stressed that the aggressors should be punished for their sin/crime.

A Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey was hearing a reference under Section 366(1) CrPC, in which the accused had been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to death for the brutal killing of their uncle and two cousins.

The Court delivered two concurring opinions, both upholding the conviction and the death penalty.

On the question of sentence, Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad agreed with the trial court's balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, while Justice Sourendra Pandey concurred with Justice Prasad and added separate observations drawing from the Mahabharat to support the award of the death penalty.

Background:

As per the prosecution, a disagreement over a parcel of land escalated into a violent clash in Rohtas. The accused Aman Singh and Sonal Singh allegedly began ploughing the disputed land adjacent to the informant's house, following which they, armed with swords (Talwar) and spears, chased the informant's family members (Vijay Singh, Deepak Singh and Rakesh Singh) and killed three of them inside their shared dwelling.

On the other hand, the accused contended that there was an unjustified delay of four hours in lodging the FIR, suggesting that it was an afterthought and an attempt to suppress the true version of events.

They also argued that the seizure list was prepared before the FIR was registered, that statements of material witnesses were not recorded, and that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident.

The defence heavily relied on medical jurisprudence, arguing that the "lacerated wounds" found on the deceased could not have been caused by swords. They also cited Rigor Mortis to challenge the time of death.

Interestingly, the High Court noted that the Investigating Officer (IO) had not acted fairly and it appeared he had acted 'designedly' with an intention to leave loopholes to favour the accused.

The Court observed that the IO failed to record the ASI's statement regarding the fardbeyan, nor did he verify land ownership.

However, relying on Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal and Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar, the Court held that the accused could not be permitted to benefit from such "contaminated conduct" or omissions of the prosecution, particularly if they appeared deliberate ("designed mischief"), as that would amount to giving them a premium for wrongdoing.

Upon consideration of the material on record, the High Court agreed with the prosecution and relied on Vijay Singh v. State of UP, where the Supreme Court reiterated that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is foreign to Indian criminal law jurisprudence.

Addressing the medical evidence, the Court rejected the defence plea as it noted that heavy swords can cause lacerations via crushing or dragging actions and the nature of injuries corresponded to the weapon of crime.

On facts, the Court held that the defence had not been able to create any doubt that the FIR was ante-dated or ante-timed, and rejected the plea. It further held that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not a ground to discard the prosecution case. The Court noted:

"The result of overall analysis of the entire materials which I have discussed hereinabove is that the prosecution has fully proved its' case beyond all reasonable doubts. PW-4 in this case is a natural eye witness. She has narrated the entire occurrence. The place of occurrence is a common house in which both the parties were living and the occurrence has taken place inside the said house. The deceased persons were attacked by a deadly weapon like talwar repeatedly by the accused persons due to an enmity on account of a land dispute".

On the question of sentence, Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad held that the trial court had duly considered all aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

He observed that the case involved unarmed persons being ruthlessly butchered by the appellants, who were armed with swords, over a dispute pertaining to a small piece of land. He further noted that the post-mortem reports clearly reflected the brutality and savagery adopted by the convicts, and observed:

"Consequent upon the demise of all three male members of the family, a huge dark hole has been created, wherein these female members have to lead rest of their agony and suffocating lives. We should not loose sight of the permanent scar which has been left in the mind and soul of the three women, whose husbands have been done to death by their own blood".

Justice Sourendra Pandey, while concurring with the opinion of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, observed that the case reminded him of the great epic Mahabharat, which narrates a devastating feud over land and power culminating in the message that aggressors ultimately meet a tragic end as divine punishment for their “adharm”, that is, the attempt to kill one's own kin to seize power. He held:

"73. The story of Mahabharat leads us to one and only one conclusion that the appellants, who were the aggressors should be punished for their sin/crime, which has not only taken the three human lives but have also killed three women who after loosing their husbands have become lifeless, their children have been left to cry all over their lives and therefore I uphold the conviction of the appellants. I agree that it is one of the rarest of the rare cases in which the option to impose sentence of imprisonment of life or a special sentencing cannot be consciously exercised. I confirm the sentence imposed by the learned trial court".

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentenced the accused persons to death and directed the payment of compensation to the three widows.

Title: State of Bihar v. Aman Singh and Anr.

Case Number: Death Reference No. 2 of 2024.

Appearance: Mr. Anil Singh appeared as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Manoj Kumar and Mr. Manish Kumar appeared for the State of Bihar. Mr. Pratik Mishra, Mr. Vatsal Vishal, and Mr. Raushan Kumar appeared for the accused. Senior Advocate Mr. Ansul, assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Ms. Eashiita Raj, Mr. Manoj Kumar, and Mr. Sada Nan Roy, appeared for the informant.

Click Here To Read/Download Order