CASE NAME	Liyakat Mian v. State of Bihar, (1973) 4 SCC 39
CITATION	AIR 1973 SC 807, 1973 CRI LJ 584, 1973 SCC (CRI) 680
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice A. Alagiriswami, Justice I.D. Dua and Justice  C.A. Vaidialingam
APPELLANT	Liyakat Mian and Others
RESPONDENT	State of Bihar
DECIDED ON	21st December 1972

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Liyakat Mian and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, rendered on December 21, 1972, addresses important questions in criminal law, including those pertaining to the trial process’s fairness and the evidence’s assessment. The appellants were challenged before the highest court after being found guilty of alleged criminal activity. The main issues in the case were the admissibility and credibility of witness testimony, the need for supporting evidence, and the standard of proof required for conviction.

It was up to the court to decide if the prosecution’s evidence satisfied the necessary requirement of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to make sure that the trial was carried out fairly and impartially, as required by the Constitution, it also looked at procedural protections. The ruling clarifies the rules guiding the evaluation of evidence, especially where there are several defendants and the necessity of avoiding injustices.

This case sets a crucial precedent by highlighting the court’s duty to strike a balance between the interests of justice and the accused’s rights. It emphasizes how crucial it is to follow the law during criminal proceedings in order to guarantee that convictions are supported by solid and reliable evidence.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The four appellants in this appeal were granted special permission to appear in Sessions Court for a trial under Section 395 of the I.P.C. for committing a dacoity in the home of Hardeo Mahton in Kursel village, Hunterganj police station, District Hazaribagh, State of Bihar. Burhan Mahton, also known as Burho Mah-to (P.W. 11), son of Hardeo Mahton (P.W. 15), was sleeping on a cot in the courtyard of his home in Kursel village, police station Huntergunj, district Hazaribagh, at midnight on April 11 and 12, 1964. His mother and two wives, Most. Rajmatia (P.W. 3) and Most. Tushia (P.W. 13), were sleeping elsewhere in the same house. Burhan Mahaton awoke to the sound of tile shattering. Still, he was apprehended by two criminals, Jashim alias Sahajad Mian and Liyakat Mian (Appellants in this Court), who immediately threw flashlights from their torches at him and leaped on him from the roof. Additionally, Jashim, also known as Sahajad, wounded Burhan Mahaton with a gunshot. But his old mother took him right away to another part of the home. 

Other villagers and Burhan Mahton’s father, Hardeo Mahton (P.W. 15), arrived at the scene after the other prisoners in the home raised an alert. While this was going on, the eight or ten dacoits had gathered their loot and taken some of the decorations from the ladies people in the house. After that, his father took Burhan Mahaton to Jori Hospital, where he received first aid but was told that due to his dangerous condition, he should be transported to a larger facility. After that, he was driven to Gaya Hospital in Bhupen-dra Kumar’s (P.W. 2) vehicle. At around 5 a.m. on April 12, 1964, the first information report was filed at the Huntergunj police station while traveling to Gaya Hospital. At approximately 1.25 p.m. on the same day, Dr. Sri Bihari Sinha (P.W. 4) recorded the dying declaration of the injured Burhan Mahton at Gaya Hospital. One of the appellants in this case, Liyakat, son of Jafri Mian, was specifically named in this deathbed declaration as one of the two dacoits who had jumped from the roof and fought with Burhan Mahaton as he attempted to leave. The last statement stated that “the son of Jainul Mian who lives at Ranchi assaulted me on my chest with something like gola” and that the second dacoit who had also jumped from the roof was the one who had fired at him. 

The Committing Magistrate charged all of the accused under Section 395 of the I.P.C. However, Jashim Mian, also known as Sahajad Mian, the second appellant in this case, was charged in the trial court with a second offense under Section 307, I.P.C., for allegedly trying to kill Burhan Mahaton by shooting him.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the accused is liable for the offense of dacoity?
• Whether the accused is also liable for the additional charge framed under Section 307 IPC?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

The evidence in the record has been improperly evaluated, and the eyewitnesses’ testimony should have been rejected as unsatisfactory or, at the very least, regarded as equivocal. A proper evaluation of this evidence would have allowed for the possibility of a reasonable doubt regarding the appellants’ guilt to be considered.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

Circumstantial evidence supported the consistent and reliable eyewitness accounts, which proved the appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution emphasized that the appellants were intimately involved in the illegal acts and that the chain of events leading up to the offense was well-documented. The deposition of important witnesses, who seemed to have no reason to falsely implicate the accused, was specifically relied upon in order to support their testimony.

Additionally, the respondents argued that a fair trial had been ensured by the trial court’s careful consideration of the evidence and adherence to due process. They underlined that little differences in witness accounts were unimportant and did not compromise the prosecution’s case because they are normal and expected in human memory. Furthermore, the evidence-based motive for the crime strengthened the prosecution’s case.

JUDGMENT

It is quite evident that the appellants’ conviction is predicated on the concurrent factual judgments of the two lower courts, which both relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses, including P.Ws. 3, 11, 13, and 15. Regarding Jashim Mian’s conviction, the sole point that has been brought up with some seriousness is that, based on the evidence that is now available, no offense under Section 307 of the I.P.C. can be deemed to have been proven. It is difficult to comprehend that Jashim Mian, also known as Sahajad Mian, shot Burhan Mahaton from a relatively close distance. 

The injured guy had several pellet wounds on the left half of his abdomen with a large lacerated wound measuring 1″ x 2″ x 3″ and multiple pellet wounds with charred skin on the left half of his left arm, according to Dr. K. N. Singh (P.W. 14), who had examined him. He said that a firearm, such as a gun, had brought on both injuries. He claimed that some of the pellets had been removed from the victim’s wounds while others were still inside his body. This same physician informed the police to set up a tape of Burhan Mahaton’s final statement. 

Anyone who violates this section faces a life sentence in jail, with the possibility of death if harm is caused. Now, Jashim Mian would have undoubtedly been guilty of murder if he had killed Burhan Mahaton by shooting at him from such close quarters. His culpability is so amply demonstrated by the plain words of Section 307 and by the logical inferences that must be drawn from the gunshot he committed. It is reasonable to assume that he is aware of this. Therefore, this suggestion is completely unacceptable. All of the appellants’ appeals must be rejected for the above reasons.

CONCLUSION

To ascertain whether the appellants’ conviction was warranted, the Supreme Court examined the evidence put forth and the logic used by the trial and appellate courts in Liyakat Mian and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar. The Court carefully considered eyewitness accounts, highlighting their reliability and consistency in proving the appellants’ complicity in the crime. Although it recognized certain small inconsistencies in their assertions, it maintained that these differences did not undermine their credibility. The Court also considered the defense’s allegations of improper procedure and insufficient evidence analysis, concluding that these arguments were unsupported. Crucially, the Court reaffirmed the rule that because human evidence is inherently flawed, a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt but does not require absolute certainty.

The appellants’ conviction was ultimately maintained by the Supreme Court, which confirmed that the evidence presented was adequate to prove their guilt. It highlighted that the accused’s rights were upheld and that the trial was conducted impartially and legally. The ruling establishes a precedent for resolving situations involving evidentiary evaluation and procedural challenges in criminal prosecutions, highlighting the delicate balance between preserving individual rights and guaranteeing justice.