Evidence Law: His Majesty’s Government of Nepal v. Kailash Mahato & others, NKP 2057, NO.4, DN 6883
Case: Culpable Homicide
Appellant/Plaintiff: Government of Nepal on FIR of Shiva Pujan Mahato Koiri of Parsa
Respondent/Defendant: Kailash Mahato of Bara and Others
Decision Number: 6883
This case is related with prove beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt goes to accused.
Fact of the case:
The body of the deceased, Budhan Prasad, was found on a road alongside a water canal (Nahar) in Gamharia ward no. 6 of Parsa. There was a bullet hole in the left side of the lower jaw; the part around the hole was burnt; there was dried blood in the nostril; and the left elbow was also severely bruised. Similarly, the postmortem report revealed other gruesome injuries. The part of the gun which is used to load the gun was also found.
Statement of Razak Hussain Kawari:
Razak gave a written statement that he was riding with Budhan Prasad on a motorcycle when about 15-16 people encircled them, demanded Rs 1 lakh, and threatened to kill them with a gun.
Due to the moonlight and the light from the motorcycle, he recognized Ram Prit Shah Kanu, Jagannath Shah Kanu, and Kailash Mohato Kanu. Since they had no money, they could not give and were attacked. Razak escaped, but Budhan was killed. Razar goes to Budhan’s house and informs his family about the attack.
Statement of Kailash Mahato:
Kailash agreed that he had killed Budhan alongside others upon the agreement that was to kill Budhan. He was offered Rs. 7000 by Ram Prit. He accepted that he, alongside 5 others, killed Budhan while Razak escaped.
Statement of Ram Ekwal Mahato:
He said that he was called by Ram Prit to his house, where 6 other people were present. Ram Prit and one other person were holding a gun. They went to the road near the canal and attacked them. Ram Ekwal said that he was standing and watching the incident.
Statement of Jagdish Shah:
Jagdish Shah accepts that 2 days earlier, Kailash, Ram Ekwal, Jagarnath, Baijanath, Nageshwar, and Ram Dev had met and conspired to kill Budhan. He said that they waited near the water canal at 8 PM and killed him while Razak escaped.
Decision of the Parsa District Court:
Kailash Mahato and Ram Prit, as per 13 (1) of the chapter on Homicide, were awarded life imprisonment and confiscation of property. Baijnath Shah and Ram Ekwal were to be imprisoned for 3 years as per 17(3) of the same chapter. Accused Nageshwar, Ram Dev and Jhagru were acquitted.
Appellate Court:
The appeal was filed in Hetauda Appellate by the GON to decide as per the original claim.
Baijnath Shah also filed an appeal to overturn the decision of the district court and clear him of all charges.
The appellate court upheld the decision of the district court, and Kailash Mahato, Ram Prit, Baijnath, and Ram Ekwal were declared guilty. The charges against the rest of the accused were dismissed due to no reliable evidence.
Supreme Court:
The supreme court upheld the decision of the appellate court. The court affirms that the accused, who were acquitted by the appellate court, were rightly provided the benefit of the doubt. Since the evidence did not prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
The evidence, which is debatable, unclear, and full of doubt, cannot be used for declaring an accused guilty.
Principle Established:
Presenting debatable evidence cannot prove one’s guilty. The element of evidence must be proven without any doubt. A claim must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused.
