In Balmiki Rai vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh delivered a 9-page long judgement dated August 12, 2026, wherein, concluded:"...12....there is absolutely no evidence against the accused persons and they were wrongly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court. 13. Thus, the judgement of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII Court, Bhojpur at Arrah, in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 2013, arising out of Sahar P.S. Case No. 102 of 2011, is set aside. 14. The instant appeal is allowed on contest. 15. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 16. The appellant, namely, Balmiki Rai, in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 949 of 2019, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 17. The appellants, namely, Ram Bhusuan Ray @Ram Bhushan Rai, in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 597 of 2019 and Dinesh Rai, in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 806 of 2019, are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Since they are on bail, they are discharged from their bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged from their liabilities under the bail bonds." The judgement was authored by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri. The case arose out of a Sahar PS. Case of 2011 from Bhojpur
The trial judge had placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 271. It is held in the said judgement that if an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it would be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence is insisted upon by the Court. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. He also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. 10. Even if an offence is committed within the four corners of a house and such offence is an offence of murder, the neighbouring people must have the opportunity to know about the incident. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) did not think it necessary to even examine any neighbouring people to ascertain the factual circumstances that allegedly took place in the night of December 8, 2011.
The case of the prosecution that the daughter of P.W. 2 was physically and mentally tortured as she failed to give birth to a child. Such incident of torture went on for a long period of five years. During this period, neither the victim nor his father or other family members took any legal step against her husband and other matrimonial relations but remain silent till her disappearance. It is also the case of the prosecution that the informant and the relatives of the victim came to know that the body of the victim was taken to some unknown place by the accused persons. None of the said villagers come to depose in support of the prosecution case.
Against a common judgement and order of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 2013, arising out of Sahar P.S. Case No. 102 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII Court, Bhojpur at Arrah, convicted the appellants, Balmiki Rai and Dinesh Rai for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life as well as rigorous imprisonment for four year with fine and in the same trial, the appellant Ram Bhushan Ray @ Ram Bhushan Rai was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine, the appellants filed separate appeals. Since the appeals assailed the common judgement and order of conviction and sentence, the High Court heard and disposed the appeals by passing the judgement.
The judgement recorded that December 8, 2011, i.e., after about 9 years of her marriage, the informant got a news that his daughter was murdered by her husband and father-in-law. It observed: "There is absolutely no evidence how the victim was allegedly murdered. None of the witnesses are the eye-witness of the occurrence. Not a single villager of the matrimonial home of the deceased was made a witness to ascertain as to how the victim had met with an unnatural death. The body of the victim was missing. It is stated by the witnesses that accused Balmiki Rai, Dinesh Rai and Ram Bhushan Rai concealed the dead-body of the deceased to cause any evidence of the commission of the offence of murder to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment in the absence of any such evidence. The learned Trial Judge held the appellants guilty on the strength of special knowledge of the accused persons under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is needless to say that Section 106 comes into play only when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person. It has not been proved as to whether the daughter of the informant was murdered or she committed suicide at her matrimonial home or she disappeared. Only because she was not found, the Court cannot presume by placing burden upon the husband, father-in-law and a co-villager that the deceased was murdered and her dead-body was concealed to cause disappearance of evidence."
No comments:
Post a Comment