In Kanchan Kumari v. State of Bihar, the bench of Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and Chandra Shekhar Jha set aside the judgement of Additional Sessions Judge, Rosera (Samastipur) which convicted the appellants Ravindra Kumar @ Lalo and Kanchan Kumari for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants Ravindra Kumar @ Lalo and Kanchan Kumari have to undergo RI for four months. The appellants were also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants have to undergo RI for one month. All the sentences were to run concurrently. The judgement of the division bench of the High Court was authored by Justice Pancholi was delivered on April 19, 2024.
The informant Binod Kumar gave a written complaint wherein Manoj Kumar (younger brother of the informant) and Mukesh Kumar (brother-in-law of Manoj Kumar) had been living at his house since long. On September 17, 2016, Mukesh Kumar (deceased) received a phone call and went outside. As a dance programme was organized on the occasion of Vishwakarma Puja at Basauna Chowk, the informant did not pay attention as to where he had gone. The informant got information through phone that dead body of Mukesh Kumar is lying in the water beside the road ahead of Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, Pakahi. The dead body was brought to Shahpur Chowk.
The written complaint given by the informant had given the names of four accused and also pointed out the motive for committing murder of deceased Mukesh Kumar.
The judgement of the Patna High Court recorded that it was surprising that after preliminary investigation the investigating agency exonerated the said four persons who were named in the FIR and only on the basis of secret information given by the informer, all the present appellants have been implicated.
Admittedly, there was no eye witness to the occurrence in question. The case of the prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence.
Notably, none of the prosecution witnesses deposed against the appellants-accused except the Investigating Officer. None of the prosecution witnesses had seen the appellants lastly in company with the deceased. Even the weapon, i.e., the knife, which was recovered from the house of one of the appellants, was not sent for necessary analysis to FSL. The said aspect is admitted by the Investigating Officer.
The Trial Court had convicted the appellants only relying upon the deposition given by the Investigating Officer. The prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstance from which it can be established that the appellants have killed the deceased despite which the Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
The case of the prosecution was that as the deceased Mukesh Kumar was having love affair with one of the appellant Kanchan Kumari, with the help of the other two co-accused the deceased Mukesh Kumar has been killed. However, the prosecution has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence before the Court that Kanchan Kumari, the appellant was having relation with the deceased. The said aspect has been admitted by the Investigating Officer.
The High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence led by the prosecution before the Trial Court. It would emerge from the record that there is no eye witness to the occurrence in question and case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. It noted that as per the deposition given by the Investigating Officer, on the basis of secret information given by the informer of the police, it was revealed that the deceased Mukesh Kumar was having love affair with Kanchan Kumari, one of the appellants and all the appellants in connivance with each other killed the deceased.
The prosecution failed to examine the witness with a view to prove that deceased Mukesh Kumar was
having love affair with Kanchan Kumari, one of the appellants. It emerges that the prosecution failed to prove the motive on the part of the accused to commit the alleged offences.
Admittedly it is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in case of circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the prosecution to complete the chain of circumstance from which it can be established before the Court that the appellants/accused have committed the alleged offences.
The he doctor who had conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased found seven injuries out of which six are sharp cut wound. He opined that death was due to hemorrhage and shock caused by above mentioned injuries. He stated that if the knife blow is given, there would be a penetrating wound and he did not find any penetrating wound on the dead body of the deceased.
The Court observed: "though the Investigating Officer collected the CDR of the concerned mobile phones and produced before the Court, the certification under Section 65B of Evidence Act was not produced before the Court."
It also observed that "in the case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes importance. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive on the part of the appellants to kill the deceased by leading cogent evidence before the Trial Court. The medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it can be said that only on the basis of the confessional statement of the accused and the CDR of the mobile phones, the appellants have been convicted by the Trial Court."
The judgement concluded: "we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt despite which the Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellants. Hence, the same is required to be quashed and set aside."
The direction of the Court reads: Since appellants, namely, Ravindra Singh @Ravindra Kumar @ Lalo and Kanchan Kumari in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.98 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.291 of 2019 respectively are in jail, they are directed to be released from custody forthwith, if their presence is not required in any other case." It also directed that Bipin Prasad Singh @ Bipin Singh, the appellant, in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1480 of 2018 who is on bail, is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.
No comments:
Post a Comment