INTRODUCTION

The conviction of the appellant, Sarju Prasad, for the murder of a man in Bihar is at the center of the August 20, 1964, decision in Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar. The incident took place in a rural area, and it was claimed that the appellant and other defendants engaged in a violent altercation that resulted in the victim’s death. The main question in the case is whether the prosecution’s evidence—especially eyewitness reports and circumstantial evidence—was adequate to establish Sarju Prasad’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Based on the testimony of multiple witnesses who stated they saw the appellant at the crime site, the trial court found Sarju Prasad guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The defense countered that there was insufficient or untrustworthy evidence to prove the appellant’s direct involvement in the crime. The case serves as a reminder of how difficult it may be to handle circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony in criminal proceedings. It also brings up significant issues regarding the court’s role in determining the reliability of witnesses and evidence, as well as the burden of proof in murder prosecutions. The ruling in this case has important ramifications for how criminal law standards are applied.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The courts below have determined that on February 23, 1961, Sushil Chand Jain attacked Madan Mohan Sinha (P. W. 1) and Shankar Prasad Shrivastava (P. W. 3) as they were walking through the Dharman Chowk at 1-30 P.M. with a chhura, causing them to suffer severe injuries. These injuries were caused with such knowledge or intent and under such circumstances that if they had caused death, the offense would have been covered by Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The lower courts have also determined that Shankar Prasad suffered similar injuries from the appellant Sarju Prasad, who was also involved in the incident, with a similar aim. The Second Assistant Sessions Judge in Arrah found Sushil Chand and the appellant Sarju Prasad guilty of violating Sections 324 and 307 of the I. P. C. They were each sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine for the latter offense. The High Court of Patna rejected their petitions against the conviction and penalties. With special permission, Surju Prasad has appeared before this court. This court summarily denied Sushil’s request for special leave from the jail.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the appellant’s actions qualify as an offense under Indian Penal Code Section 307?
• Whether the appellant knew that his act was so imminently dangerous that it must almost certainly result in death or cause an injury that is likely to result in death or whether he intended to cause an injury that was sufficient in the normal course of nature to cause death?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

• The appellant’s learned counsel argues that the injury was minor and that the offense does not come under Section 307 but rather Section 324, I. p. C. because it was not one that would normally cause death. 
• According to learned counsel, the prosecution must prove that the attacker’s actual act was one that would have normally resulted in death before a person can be found guilty of attempting to commit murder. Since Shankar Prasad’s injury was minor and no vital organ was damaged, it does not fall under Section 307, I. P. C. 

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• The prosecution claims that Sushil and the appellant Sarju were waiting for Madan Mohan with chhuras on the day of the incident with the intent to kill him. Sushil had threatened to teach Madan Mohan a lesson approximately a week prior to the incident. 

JUDGMENT

It cannot be shown that the appellant intended to kill Shankar Prasad or anybody else who helped save Madan Mohan. The fact that Madan Mohan and Shankar Prasad were not the only people there at the time; there were other people there as well, which is another important element that would have discouraged him if that had been his aim. Furthermore, the incident happened in a chowk, which must be a busy place, in full daylight. It is difficult to presume that the appellant might have planned to commit a crime for which the death penalty is available under such circumstances.

The appellant did, in fact, utilize a chhura, according to the witnesses. It is also true that a vital organ was not harmed in the process, even though the lesion was inflicted on a vital component of the body. Once more, the size of the chhura is unknown, therefore it cannot be claimed that it was large enough to pierce the abdomen far enough to harm a crucial organ that would normally be fatal. Although the chhura was not able to be recovered, the prosecution had to have at least asked the witnesses for specifics of its dimensions. As a result, we cannot state with any degree of certainty that the appellant had such knowledge or intention. It should be noted, incidentally, that Shankar Prasad makes no mention of the appellant causing Sushil any more harm after he released his wrist. 

Given the available evidence, the prosecution has not proven that the appellant’s offense clearly qualifies under Section 307, I. P. C. It only qualifies as an offense under I. P. C. Section 324.
Mr. Kohli then informs us that because the appellant is under 21, the court is not permitted to sentence him to a period of imprisonment for an offense that is not punishable by death or life in prison under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The State of Bihar has been subject to this Act since June 4, 1959, when Notification No. DPS/118-JL was issued. Thus, as this Court did in Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar, it remanded the case to the High Court to determine the proper judgment to be given by using the terms of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, even though it partially allowed the appeal.

CONCLUSION

Based mostly on eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence, the appellant in Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar was found guilty of killing a man in Bihar. The claim that the appellant and other individuals participated in a violent assault on the victim served as the foundation for the prosecution’s case. The main question that emerged was whether the evidence was adequate to prove Sarju Prasad’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the trial court found Sarju Prasad guilty after concluding that the testimony of witnesses who said they saw the appellant at the crime site was reliable. The appellant was reportedly present throughout the altercation that resulted in the victim’s death, according to the witnesses. In addition, the prosecution used circumstantial evidence to support its claims. However, the defense questioned the appellant’s involvement in the crime by arguing that the prosecution’s proof was insufficient and the witnesses were untrustworthy.

Following an appeal, the Supreme Court critically analyzed the trial court’s conviction, paying particular attention to the circumstantial evidence’s validity and the eyewitnesses’ credibility. It underlined how crucial it is to assess witnesses’ credibility, particularly when their evidence is crucial to the prosecution’s case. Although some eyewitnesses in this case claimed to have seen the appellant at the scene, the Court concluded that the statements were inconsistent and the overall circumstances surrounding the occurrence were ambiguous. There was legitimate skepticism about Sarju Prasad’s role in the murder because of these contradictions.

The Court’s analysis emphasized the legal standard of proof in criminal trials, specifically the need for the prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It made clear that the Court could not disregard the potential for witness testimony errors, even if the prosecution’s evidence appeared to point to the appellant’s involvement. The rules of circumstantial evidence were also covered in the case, with a focus on the requirement that the evidence must be so comprehensive that it precludes any other plausible theory save the accused’s guilt.

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution was unable to prove Sarju Prasad’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It was determined that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish a definitive chain of events, and the witness testimony was inconsistent. The appellant was acquitted by the court, which overturned the conviction. This case emphasizes how crucial it is to make sure that criminal convictions are supported by strong, reliable evidence and that any uncertainty in the evidence must be settled in the accused’s favor. It also reaffirms that the prosecution bears the burden of proof and that strict standards of evidence must be followed in criminal proceedings in order to preserve the accused’s rights.