Unprofessionalism Of Investigating Officer Doesn't Warrant Dismissal Of Prosecution Case If Evidence Of Victim, Witnesses Reliable: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court, upholding the convictions of five individuals for kidnapping under Sections 364 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has held that despite certain lapses in the investigation, the case of prosecution cannot be dismissed if evidence of the victim is reliable.A division bench of Justices Alok Kumar Pandey and Ashutosh Kumar observed, The contention of the learned APP is quite tenable in the light of the fact that the statement of victim remained intact, throughout the trial. On the other hand, the contention of the appellants on the point of motive and the lapses on the part of the I.O. are not tenable in the light of the eye witness account. The investigation appears to have been conducted in faulty manner. But only due to the unprofessionalism of the I.O., the case of prosecution cannot be thrown out.Court said in this case statement of victim is quite convincing and reliable and his version has remained intact during the cross examination which has been corroborated by the I.O.The prosecution case revolved around the disappearance of one, Chetan Shankar Rajhans in 2012, who was allegedly forcibly taken away in a vehicle by appellants Dablu Mandal, Bablu Mandal, Deepak Mandal, and Girija Yadav. The informant further alleged that these appellants had previously committed the murder of a relative of the informant.The question before the bench was whether conviction of the appellants under Section 364, 365 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was it justified or not? It noted that during the sessions trial, instead of Binod Kumar Jha (I.O.), one Ram Kishore Sharma (I.O.) was examined.After carefully examining the evidence and witness testimonies, the court found the victim's statement to be consistent and reliable, remaining unchanged throughout the trial. The court corroborated the victim's account, supported by the I.O.'s testimony, and identified all the appellants. Although there was no ransom demand and the victim was not mistreated, the court upheld the convictions under Sections 364 and 365 with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C.However, the court noted that appellant Arbind Yadav was not present during the initial abduction but was connected to the incident when the victim identified him at the police station. Therefore, his conviction under Section 364 of the I.P.C. was set aside, while his conviction under Section 365/34 was upheld. In its verdict, the court reduced the sentences of Deepak Mandal, Dablu Mandal, Bablu Mandal, and Girija Yadav to the period already served. The court directed their immediate release from jail, provided they are not required in any other case, subject to the payment and realization of fines imposed upon them.Counsel/s For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikas Kumar, Adv. Counsel/s For the State : Mr.D.K.Sinha, APP For the Informant Mr. Deewakar Upadhayay, Adv.LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 120Case Title: Deepak Mandal vs The State Of Bihar Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No.384 Of 2015Click Here To Read / Download Order

Unprofessionalism Of Investigating Officer Doesn't Warrant Dismissal Of Prosecution Case If Evidence Of Victim, Witnesses Reliable: Patna High Court

Bhavya Singh

Tags