IMPORTANT POINT
Doubt and suspicion cannot form basis of guilt of accused – Suspicion howsoever grave it may be, remains only a doubtful pigment in story canvassed by prosecution for establishing its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. The present criminal appeal is filed by appellant Guna Mahto, found guilty of murdering his wife Smt. Deomatiya Devi under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Ld. Trial Court, Daltonganj in Sessions Trial Case No. 50 of 1989 titled as State vs. Guna Mahto vide judgement dated 10.05.2001. The Ld. Trial Court sentenced the appellant to a term of life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and two years rigorous imprisonment in relation to the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. On appeal, in the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2001 dated 23.07.2004 titled as Guna Mahto v. State of Jharkhand and findings in respect to the conviction and sentencing arrived at by the Ld. Trial Court were affirmed, despite observing that the Investigation Officer was not examined by the prosecution. Be that as it may, the High Court solely relied upon the ocular evidence of Banaudhi Mahto (PW-2), Samodhi Yadav (PW-9) and Nandish Yadav (PW-10).

3. Hence the present appeal filed by the appellant Guna Mahto.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had committed the murder of his wife and thereafter dumped her dead body in the well of the village with an intent to cause disappearance of the evidence related to the crime. Later, the accused approached the Police with unclean hands by fabricating a false story, wherein he reported his wife to be ‘missing’.

5. On 13.8.1988, the dead body of the deceased was found in the well of the village pursuant to which the matter was brought to the notice of the police and P.S. Case No. 35/1988 (Ex.P-3) registered at Manika Police Station, Jharkhand. Accordingly, the investigation was conducted and challan presented before the Court for Trial. The prosecution examined ten witnesses out of whom, testimonies of Murari Ram (PW-1), Mithu Pd. Sahu (PW- 4), Musafir Yadav (PW-5), Munni Mistry (PW-6), Chitranjan Pandey (PW-8) and Sukhru Mahto (PW-7) are merely formal in nature. We find their testimonies, when considered independently or even collectively, not to point anything towards the guilt of the accused.

6. Before we deal with the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate, at this stage, to state the facts that are not in dispute: (a) the identity of the deceased, (b) the body of the deceased recovered from the well of the village, (c) the Post Mortem Report prepared by Dr. Narendra Kumar Misar (PW-3) stating the cause of the death being haemorrhage and shock with injuries on the neck of the deceased.

7. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case revolving around circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances relied upon must point out only towards one hypothesis, that is, the guilt of the accused alone and none else. On various occasions, this Court has stated essential conditions that must be fulfilled before conviction of an accused can take place based on circumstantial evidence. In the landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Mahrashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 it has been held as under:

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be an