This Case Commentary is written by Arya Aradhana Routray, a Second-year law student of National Law University, Odisha

CASE DETAILS

Raju Manjhi v. The State of Bihar

Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 SC 3592; 2019 (12) SCC 784; 2018 CRI LJ 4342

In the Supreme Court of India

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Criminal Appeal No. 1333 of 2009

Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer, N.V. Ramana

PARTIES

Raju Manjhi (appellant)

State of Bihar (respondent)

INTRODUCTION

The recently enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 defines Dacoity under Section 310: “When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit dacoity.”

Dacoity differs from a robbery on the grounds of the number of people involved in committing the offence. The offence is considered dacoity when it is five or more than five people committing the robbery. The Court in the Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan[1] case held that dacoity involves the assistance of five or more individuals to attempt or commit robbery. For instance, if a, b, c, d, and e chose to break into the bank at night and 'e' was manning the entry while others were breaking the safe, then all five people in this case are liable for the crime of dacoity. There are some specific elements necessary to establish the offence of dacoity: -

1. The accused have attempted to or committed a robbery.

2. People committing or attempting robbery must be five or more, including the individual present and aiding.

3. All such individuals should act conjointly.

The case of Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar is one such significant exploration of the legal intricacies of the offence of dacoity in India. The case has a brutal background, wherein one unfortunate incident ended with a victim being hospitalized with severe injuries and, eventually, succumbed to death; that resulted in the charges of Dacoity under Section 396 of the then provisions of the Indian penal code, 1860. In this case, the alleged offender was cross-examined regarding his involvement in a crime where collective action is defined by law. From critical analysis of the confession statements, testimonies of the witnesses, and recovery of the stolen property, many weaknesses in the case built against the accused were seen.

This commentary will, therefore, analyse the Supreme Court ruling concerning the legal principles applied, the sufficiency of the evidence, and broader implications for justice in handling dacoity offences.

RAJU MANJHI V. STATE OF BIHAR[2]

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

As stated in brief, the facts of the case are as follows. On the prevailing night of 11th and 12th January in the year 1999, there were 10 to 12 individuals of 20 to 25 years who broke into the residence of one Kamdeo Singh in the village of Banbareya, under Moffasil in the district Gaya. And absconded with stolen property. The inmates including Kamdeo Singh, his father-in-law Kameshwar Singh, wife Sita Devi, son Niraj Kumar, and daughter-in-law Reena Devi during resistance faced injuries caused by the assailants.

The stolen possessions accounted to be Rs.25,000/ worth. A complaint was lodged by Kamdeo Singh lodged at the Moffasil police. A case was registered under IPC Section 395/412. Zamil Ashgar, the officer in charge of the Muffasil Police station, arrived at the scene of the incident, prepared the inmates' injury reports, and recorded Kamdeo Singh's statement.

Kameshwar Singh later succumbed to the injuries. The charges against the accused were replaced from IPC Section 395 to IPC Section 396. Some of the accused were arrested during the investigation. The Police recorded their statements and recovered some of the stolen cash. Among the six accused, one Rameshwari Manjhi was stated as an absconder and pleaded not guilty while stating of being falsely implicated.

During the trial, the prosecution cross-examined eleven witnesses. The trial court concluded that the accused was likely to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution based on the damning evidence and intake of confession by the accused. The Trial Court found the defendants guilty by IPC Section 396. The convicts were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000 each. If they failed to do so, they would be subjected to another six months of severe imprisonment.

Henceforth, each of the aggrieved accused persons carried the matter through separate appeals before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal and sustained the trial court’s conviction and sentence.

CHARGES FRAMED

1. A case was registered under IPC Section 395/412.

2. The accused was convicted under section 396. The High Court sustained the Trial Court order.

3. The accused appealed before the Supreme Court against the High Court Verdict.

ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

1. Whether the accused, Raju Manjhi has been wrongly implicated in the offence u/s 396 of IPC?

2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support that the accused committed or aided the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt?

ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANTS

· A particular argument has been made on the appellant's side that, notwithstanding the lack of definitive proof linking the appellant to the alleged crime, both the trial court and the high court accepted the prosecution's version of events and found him guilty. The appellant can't be labelled as an accused or a participant in the crime based only on the prosecution's assertion that he was present in the appellant's home during the police raid and that Rs. 400 was found in his possession.

· Even the appellant's purported confessional statement cannot be given legal importance because it was not made in front of a magistrate. They cannot be considered, in particular since the trial Court itself questioned the veracity of the confessional statement because the supposed confessional statements of the other accused were likewise written in the same handwriting and drawn by the police.

· Another argument made by the appellant is that the prosecution was unable to establish the appellant’s motive behind the committed act. Also, no injury report was brought on record by the Courts concerning the witnesses sustaining the injuries. The prosecution had numerous loopholes, and the appellant in this case had no prior convictions for a crime, yet the court without weighing the significance of any of these facts rushed to hold the appellant guilty of the offense.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION

· The prosecution representing the Bihar state put forward the argument that there was enough material on record that established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

· Credible evidence was available against the appellant. The Counsel presented that the appellant was present at the entrance of the victim’s residence during the crime guarding while the other accused ransacked the house.

· The confessional statement made at the accused's instance not only establishes the real nature of the accusation but also reveals additional information about the case. It aided the I.O. in the recovery of evidence and stole money from his home. According to the rules of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused-appellant had shared the looted items by taking part in the crime, and there was no bar to validate his confessional statement.

JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court found no susceptibility in the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal of the accused of being bereft of any rights.

The Court held that even though motive plays a substantial part in a case grounded on circumstantial evidence establishing motive is not significant when ample of direct evidence exists on record in the first place. The confessional statement given by the appellant depicts the objective of the accused in the committed dacoity and the accused-appellant being a part of it.

The discovery of facts from the statement of the accused-appellant includes the inmates of the house being beaten with wooden sticks by the accused party and suffering injuries. The bloodstained sticks found from the orchard of Kamal Jain in the FSL report provide direct circumstantial evidence against the accused-appellant. Recovery of Rs. 400 from the share of looted money from the house of the appellant is incriminating evidence against the appellant.

The facts and circumstances of the case are directed towards the guilt of the accused-appellant. Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.

CRITICAL APPRAISAL

The Supreme Court Verdict ensures the prevalence of Justice and took a profound stand against the crime of dacoity. Replacement of the IPC Section 395 to Section 396 is justified considering the committed dacoity that involved inflicted injuries that led to the death of a victim. The facts and evidence presented by the learned counsel act as direct evidence against the accused, however, certain instances like the unavailability of injury reports during the trials raise questions about the Police procedure. There is a necessity of streamlining the Protocol in such instances. High Court upholding the judgment of the Trial Court and further Supreme Court sustaining the judgment of the High Court stands justified considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Dacoity is a serious crime that disturbs the harmony of society and brings chaos, timely action and justice are a must to maintain the trust of the public in law and order.

Further, the focus of the justice system should not only be limited to punishing the criminal but also on the elimination of the crime. If we look at the objective of punishment in criminals from a broader perspective then the goal is to ensure an orderly society. Therefore, it is utterly necessary to ensure the simultaneous process of restoration of peace and prevention of future incidences of crime.

IMPACT OF THE CASE

Here's an analysis of the broader impacts of this notable case:

v Standard of Proof: The case ensured and reiterated that the case has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to establish that while direct evidence may be determinative of a case, motive need not be established.

v Legal Consciousness: The case provided the significance of confessional statements and direct evidence that makes them up to the stringent standards in criminal justice.

v Judicial Trust: The verdict helps to improve public trust in the judicial system's ability to handle the complex cases on time, but also affirms that it will dispense justice on evidence which is or can be regarded as sufficient.

v Evidence Admissibility: The verdict is going to be referred to in various cases regarding confessional statements and circumstantial evidence.

v Appeal Court Decisions: It also modifies the appeal courts' attitude towards cases that have been constituted based on sufficient evidence and provides a reference for appeal case handling.

In a nutshell, the case of Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar reaffirms important legal doctrine related to confessional statements and direct evidence within criminal cases. It influences judicial treatment and handling of evidence and reinforces public confidence in the dispensation of justice, acting as a precedent for future cases that present similar legal questions.

REFERENCES

1. K.I. Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, 906(14th ed., 2022).

2. 2018 Latest Caselaw 514 SC, <https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-caselaw/2018/august/2018-latest-caselaw-514-sc/> accessed 15 September 2024

3. T. Fathima, Dacoity Under IPC, Indian Bar Association, <https://www.indianbarassociation.org/dacoity-under-ipc/> accessed 15 September 2024

Raju Manjhi v. State of Bihar, 2019 (12) SCC 784.

[1] AIR 1998 SC 1220

[2] 2019 12 SCC 784