In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court has set aside the conviction and one-year sentence of Manoj Murmu, who was accused of consuming alcohol in violation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The court highlighted serious lapses in the investigation and a lack of conclusive evidence.
The case originated from a non-FIR excise report in Katihar, where the appellant was allegedly found intoxicated based on a breath analyzer test. However, the court found the investigation deeply flawed. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey, who delivered the judgment, pointed out that the informant in the case was also the investigating officer-a practice strongly discouraged by the Supreme Court to ensure fairness.
The court noted that the place of occurrence was not properly identified, and there were contradictions in witness statements. While one witness claimed 8-10 people were present at the scene, the investigating officer did not mention any bystanders. This raised doubts about the transparency and impartiality of the probe.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Directs NEET OBC-NCL Quota Consideration for State List Candidates
Moreover, the prosecution relied solely on a breath analyzer test, with no supporting blood or urine test-a critical requirement as emphasized by the Supreme Court in earlier judgments. The officer conducting the test also admitted he had no specialized training, making the electronic evidence inadmissible under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Quoting from landmark rulings like Megha Singh v. State of Haryana and Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, the court reiterated that a fair investigation is the foundation of a fair trial. “The informant and the investigator must not be the same person,” the judgment underscored, highlighting the constitutional right to a unbiased investigation under Article 21.
Read also:- Supreme Court Collegium Orders Transfer of 14 High Court Judges Across India
With multiple discrepancies and no conclusive proof, the court acquitted the appellant, stating that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Manoj Murmu, who was already on bail, has been discharged from his bail bonds.
The decision reinforces the necessity of diligent and impartial investigation, especially in cases under special laws like the Bihar Prohibition Act, where the burden of proof often shifts to the accused.
Case Title: Manoj Murmu @ Manoj Murmur vs. The State of Bihar
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 848 of 2023
