TITLE: JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA @ JITTU V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
CITATION: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1347 OF 2011
DECIDED ON: 5 JANUARY 2024
CORAM: JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
Facts of the Case
Four individuals, namely Manja alias Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu, Gledwin alias Banti Isai, and Ajay alias Ajayya, were convicted for the murder of Pappu alias Rajendra Yadav. The incident occurred on 08.06.2007, around 08:45 pm, near Machchu Hotel in the jurisdiction of Police Station Ghamapur, Jabalpur. The accused allegedly assaulted Pappu Yadav with a knife, dagger, sickle, and kasia when he was leaving Machchu Hotel with his friends. The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the dying declaration of the deceased made orally to his brother and mother, as well as the testimony of an eyewitness, Rahul Yadav (PW-13).
Issues Involved
Whether the dying declaration made by the deceased is reliable and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants. Whether the testimony of the eyewitness, Rahul Yadav (PW-13), is credible given his criminal background and potential bias. Whether there is corroborative evidence to support the dying declaration and eyewitness testimony.
Legal Provisions
Section 302 r/w 34 IPC – Punishment for murder with common intention. Principles related to the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. Consideration of eyewitness testimony and the necessity for corroboration, especially when the witness has a criminal background.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
In its analysis, the court critically evaluated the reliability of the dying declaration and the credibility of the eyewitness testimony in the case involving the murder of Pappu Yadav. Emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence for the dying declaration and considering doubts surrounding the critical injuries sustained, the court granted the appellants the benefit of doubt. The court’s decision underscored the responsibility of the appellate court to intervene when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It highlighted the cautious approach required in criminal cases, especially when key witnesses, such as the eyewitness with a criminal background, raised questions about potential bias. Ultimately, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds, prioritizing the principle of ensuring justice through a robust and credible legal process.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
