Case Analysis: JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA @ JITTU V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 

CITATION	Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2011
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	5th January 2024
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu
RESPONDENT	State of Madhya Pradesh
BENCH	Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal

INTRODUCTION 
In the case, surrounding a fatal altercation near Machchu Hotel adjacent to Shukla Hotel in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu, was implicated in connection with the demise of Pappu, also known as Rajendra Yadav. The accused were found guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were consequently sentenced to life imprisonment. The case hinged on the presentation of witness testimonies, examination of motive, scrutiny of medical evidence, and consideration of circumstantial elements.

Following the initial conviction, appeals were lodged, yet the High Court upheld the verdict, subsequently dismissing the appeals. It is noteworthy that amidst the appellate process, one of the appellants, Manja @ Amit Mishra, deceased, thereby leaving Jitendra Kumar Mishra as the sole appellant in the case.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. Four individuals, Manja alias Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra Jittu, Gledwin alias Banti Isai, and Ajay alias Ajayya were found guilty under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000 each.
2. In the criminal case involving Manja @ Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu, Gledwin @ Banti Isai, and Ajay @ Ajayya, their respective appeals against the conviction and sentence awarded by the Session Trial were dismissed by the High Court. Despite their best efforts, the verdict remained unchanged.
3. On June 8, 2007, Pappu was attacked and killed by four individuals near Machchu Hotel in Jabalpur. His brother and mother found him injured and rushed him to the hospital, where he later died.
4. Pappu’s dying declaration named Banti Isai, Manja, Ajay, and Jittu as the assailants, which was corroborated by his brother and mother in their statements.

ISSUE RAISED 

1. Whether the dying declaration made by the deceased is valid and sufficient?
2. Whether the testimony of the witness, Rahul Yadav, is dependable given his criminal background?
3. Whether there is corroborative evidence to support the dying declaration given by the deceased ?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT 

1. The case at hand revolves around issues of identification, alleged enmity, medical evidence, and inconsistent statements. The appellant has contested the identification of the accused, claiming that the witnesses testimonies were inconsistent and unreliable. 
2. Additionally, the appellant highlighted the existence of an enmity between the parties involved and contended that the witnesses had a motive to falsely implicate him. He argued that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between him and the crime. 
3. The appellant also emphasized the lack of conclusive medical evidence connecting him to the assault, questioning the reliability of the post-mortem report. 
4. Furthermore, the appellant pointed out inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, arguing that their versions of events did not align, casting doubt on the veracity of their claims.
5.  Finally, the appellant pleaded for the benefit of doubt and urged the court to consider the gaps in the prosecution’s case and the possibility of mistaken identity. He maintained that he deserved acquittal due to insufficient evidence against him.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT 

1. Challenging the appellant’s claim of enmity, the respondent established a clear motive for the crime based on a land dispute between the deceased, Pappu alias Rajendra Yadav, and the accused. This provided a compelling reason for the accused to perpetrate the attack.
2. The respondent emphasized medical evidence from the post-mortem report, indicating multiple injuries consistent with a violent assault, thus aligning with eyewitness testimonies and reinforcing the prosecution’s narrative.
3. Additionally, circumstantial evidence played a significant role in the respondent’s argument, including the presence of the accused at the crime scene, the use of knives as weapons consistent with witness accounts, and their proximity to the victim, all contributing to the case against them.
4. By reconstructing the chain of events leading to the fatal assault, the respondent underscored the intentional nature of the attack by the accused and their collective responsibility in causing Pappu Yadav’s death.

JUDGEMENT 

The available evidence did not support the dying declaration, and it could not be accepted as accurate without additional compelling evidence. 

While an appellate court should be cautious in overturning a conviction, the record suggests that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Given these factors, the lower courts should have favoured the appellants. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the appellant’s conviction and sentence should be overturned, and they should be exonerated of all charges and released. As they are currently out on bail, their bail bonds will be discharged.

ANALYSIS 

It is important to acknowledge that the appellate court should approach overturning a conviction with caution. However, it is also crucial that the court takes into consideration the available evidence and makes a fair and unbiased decision.

 In cases where the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and a plausible view different from the one expressed by the lower courts can be taken, it is appropriate for the appellate court to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. This is a necessary step in ensuring justice is served and that innocent individuals are not punished unjustly.

CONCLUSION 

The dying declaration in the case cannot be accepted as correct as there is no material to corroborate it. In such circumstances, the accused cannot be convicted unless there is cogent evidence to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The courts should extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused where the evidence on record indicates that they have failed to prove their guilt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside, and they stand acquitted and are set free. Their bail bonds are discharged.

REFRENCES 

1. Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2024 (indiankanoon.org)
2. Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Cases

This Article is written by Samruddhi Lele, student of Shankarao Chavan Law College Pune (MMSCLC); Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.