In Shatrughan Ram @ Shatrudhan Das Vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr. Anshuman delivered a 16-page long judgement, wherein, it set aside the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court at Patna on February 16, 2019, whereby and whereunder, the Trial Judge had held the appellant guilty for committing offence under Sections 376/302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for life till the end of his natural life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. It directed the appellant to be released at once.
On the basis of an oral statement made by one Jawahar Kumar Ray of village Mohaddipur, which was reduced to writing by Sub-Inspector, K. N. Paswan on December 17, 2007, S.K. Puri P.S Case of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. It was alleged by the informant that at the relevant point when the alleged incident took place, he used to reside at New Punaichak, Jhuggi-Jhopadpatti by the side of the railway line within Police Station-S. K. Puri. On December 16, 2007 in the evening, the wife of the informant, namely, Kachan Devi sent her daughter, since deceased, aged about 8 years, to collect waste papers. At that place, the appellant was also present. His child also went to collect papers. When the informant returned at about 08:30 P.M. on December 16, 2006, after pulling rickshaw, he did not find his minor daughter at home. He and his wife conducted a search for their daughter at nearby area and asked the local people about her whereabouts but the local people failed to give any reply to them. Then they suspected that his daughter might be in the room of the appellant. He went to the house of the appellant to find out his daughter but found that the house 3/16 and the entrance gate of the appellant were locked and dark inside.
On the following morning at about 07:00. A.M., the informant again conducted search of his daughter.
During search, he peeped through the closed door of the room of the appellant and found that her daughter lying dead inside the room of the appellant. With the help of local people, the lock of the entrance gate and the door of the room were broken. The informant and others saw the dead body of her daughter having injuries and scratch marks all over her body. Her undergarment and pant were found open and blood was found near her buttock. He suspected that the appellant who was also residing at the relevant point of time at New Punaichak, Jhuggi-Jhopadpatti committed rape upon his daughter and thereafter murdered her by throttling.
The S.H.O., S.K. Puri, Police Station instructed S.I. K. N. Paswan to take up the investigation of the case. During investigation, he recovered the dead body of the daughter of the informant; held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the place of occurrence; seized blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence; and one photocopy of voter identity card from the room of the appellant. He also examined available witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination to P.M.C.H. He also obtained forensic report of the seized blood- stained earth and wearing apparels of the victim.
On conclusion of investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC before the learned C.J.M., Patna on October 29, 2011. The Sessions Judge, Patna received the case record after commitment on January 4, 2012 and transferred the case to the 10th Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Patna.
The Additional Sessions, 10th Court at Patna, received the case records and framed charge against the accused/appellant on May 9, 2012, punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. When the charge, so framed, was written over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty. Accordingly trial of the case commenced.
Justice Chaudhuri observed:"10. At the outset, we like to record that after commencement of trial, no sessions trial case can be transferred from one Trial Court to another by issuing administrative order by the learned Principle Sessions Judge, Patna. However, the said procedural wrong was committed by the learned Principle Sessions Judge by issuing memo no. 3052-3054 dated 4th of March, 2017, directing the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Court at Patna to transfer the case to the 2nd Fast Track Court at Patna. 11. However, when the trial of the case was concluded by the learned 2nd Fast Track Court at Patna by passing judgement of conviction and sentence, we treat the above-mentioned anomaly as procedural irregularity and proceed with the hearing of the instant appeal.
During trial, in order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses.
20. The Trial Court convicted the appellant on the sole ground of recovery of dead body from the house of the appellant on the basis of presumption that since the dead body of the victim girl was found in the room of the appellant, he had special knowledge about what had happened to the deceased after she left her home in the evening of 16th of December, 2007. It was held by the Trial Court that the incident that took place with the victim after she departed her home to bring waste papers was within the special knowledge of the appellant and he failed to discharge his burden as to how the deceased was ravished and subsequently murdered.
Notably, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act discusses the burden of proof on a person who has knowledge of a specific fact, such as being the last person known to have been with the victim.
Justice Chaudhary observed: "23. It is needless to say that in order to convict someone on the basis of circumstantial evidence invoking the last seen theory, the prosecution is under primary obligation to prove the circumstance beyond any shadow of doubt, the chain of which must lead to the inescapable conclusion of that person committing the crime. 24. In criminal cases, where direct evidences are hard to found, the entire case depends on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidences imply when all the evidences are clubbed together to form a complete chain of events in such a way that the accused may be convicted. The chain of events, so formed, must be without any reasonable doubt. Each circumstances and the evidences from which the chain is formed should be individually proved as direct evidences. The circumstantial evidence is always direct and primary which means the fact from which the existence of the fact in issue to be inferred must be proved by direct evidence. In case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances should be vested by absolute evidences and should form a complete chain to bring home the guilt of the accused without giving any alternative chance to any other hypothesis."
He added:"25. In the instant case, there is absolutely no direct evidence against the appellant in support of the charge. Thus, the Trial Court bases its judgement of conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 26. The only circumstance appearing against the appellant is that the dead body of the victim was found in his room in the morning of 17th of December, 2007. The victim was missing from the evening of 16th of December, 2007. Nobody saw the appellant enticing the victim to his house after her departure from her own house to bring some waste papers. 27. It is unfortunate to note that the incident took place on 16th of December, 2007. The appellant was arrested and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the strength of warrant of arrest on 7th of August, 2011. Charge- sheet was filed on 29th of October, 2011. Charge was framed against the accused on 9th of May, 2012...."
The Court concluded: "29. After hearing the appeal, we are unfortunately note that the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life on consideration of inadmissible evidence. The prosecution hopelessly failed to bring home the circumstances which were necessarily established beyond any shadow of doubt in order to come to a finding in support of hypothesis of guilt against the appellant. 30. This is a case where the appellant remained in custody for about 15 years though prosecution failed to produce any kind of evidence whatsoever against him during trial. However, we do not find any alternative but to lament for the unfortunate state of justice delivery system in our country and pray that timely justice shall be delivered both to the prosecution and defence in future. 31. In view of the above discussions, the instant Criminal Appeal is allowed on contest. 32. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
The transferee Court had received the record on March 10, 2017 and continued with the trial which was commenced before the 10th Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Patna. From the date of arrest/production before the Court till date, he was in custody. The Trial Court delivered the impugned judgement on February 16, 2019.
The appeal was filed before the High Court on May 22, 2019. The appeal was admitted for hearing by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court after a lapse of six years on March 28, 2025. Thereafter, date was fixed for production of lower court records on August 1, 2025. 28. Subsequently, a Coordinate Bench passed an order for substitute service of notice upon Respondent/informant by paper publication. The Coordinate Bench vide order, dated December 19, 2025 had refused the prayer for suspension of sentence and bail.
.jpg)