Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Shree Chandrashekhar and Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ.
Shankar Ram – Appellant
versus
State of Jharkhand and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.988 of 2012
Decided on 2.11.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Public Prosecutor
IMPORTANT POINT
Where genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding without proof of signature of person to whom it purports to be signed.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder of wife – Life sentence – There is no eyewitness who could tell Court how deceased suffered burn injuries in her matrimonial house – Defence set up by appellant is that his wife caught fire from a debri (small lamp) and his neighbours tried to rescue her – At that time he was not present in his house – Any witness including local Ex-MLA who according to witnesses was present in Panchayati was not examined in Court – Informant who was a practising Lawyer tried to support his written complaint but evidence of other witnesses that he was instrumental in making six persons accused in protest petition whereas a First Information Report was lodged only against three accused impeach his testimony to the extent to render him unreliable – That deceased was put to harassment and torture at hands of her husband is not proved by the prosecution – No motive is assigned by prosecution why deceased was done to death in her matrimonial house – One stray incident of assault by husband is not sufficient to infer that deceased was ill treated by her husband throughout marriage and one day he decided to get rid of her – Death by burn injury can be homicidal, suicidal or accidental but in present case it is not proved that deceased died a homicidal death – Prosecution evidence is cryptic and lacking in details to implicate appellant in the case – Important material evidences were not collected or were not available because defence version of occurrence is true – In a case based on circumstantial evidence prosecution is required to prove incriminating circumstances by leading cogent and consistent evidence and an inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused – Materials on record do not complete chain of circumstances so as to hold appellant guilty – Prosecution has failed to prove charge of murder against appellant – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside. (Paras 8, 10 to 14, 16, 20, 21 and 22)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 294 – No formal proof of certain documents – Where genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding without proof of signature of person to whom it purports to be signed – In a criminal trial what is important is to prove cause of death and for that purpose examination of Doctor who has conducted post-mortem may be necessary. (Para 20)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.—Pushpa Devi was married to Shankar Ram in the year 1983. She was found dead on 29th August 1997 in her matrimonial house at village-Kargali Gate. A written complaint was given on 30th August 1997 to the officer-in-charge of Bermo PS in which her brother Awadh Kishore Singh made allegations of harassment and torture of Pushpa Devi at the hands of her husband, mother-in-law and Pramod Ram.
2. Bermo PS Case No. 116 of 1997 was registered under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Shankar Ram, Pramod Ram and Sita Devi. The investigating officer submitted Final Form on the ground of mistake of facts but on the basis of a protest petition filed by the informant, CP Case No. 184 of 2000 was registered in which Kishun Ram, Mangru Ram and Kaushalya Devi were also arrayed as accused persons. After inquiry under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all six accused persons were issued summons to face the trial and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 27th August 2004.
3. In S.T. No. 269 of 2004, Kishun Ram, Kaushalya Devi and Mangru Ram were discharged vide order dated 04th December 2004 but against Shankar Ram, Pramod Ram and Sita Devi a charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed vide order dated 04th January 2005. The records would reveal that the substance of charge was read over and explained to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Pramod Ram died during the trial and, accordingly, the proceeding against him was dropped vide order dated 06th January 2012.
5. In S.T. No. 269 of 2004, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat acquitted Sita Devi on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove her involvement in causing death of Pushpa Devi.
6. The appellant is convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Mr. Arwind Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the judgment of Sessions Court on the grounds that (i) cause of death of Pushpa Devi was not proved (ii) evidence as regards harassment and torture of Pushpa Devi is in the realm of hearsay (iii) presence of the appellant in his house when Pushpa Devi caught fire was not proved, and (iv) chain of circumstances to prove guilt of the appellant is not complete.
8. The law on circumstantial evidence is well-settled. In a case based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution is required to prove incriminating circumstances by leading cogent and consistent evidence and an inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.
9. In “Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan” (2011) 12 SCC 545 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“25. It is a settled legal position that in case of circumstantial evidence, there must be a complete chain of evidence which would lead to a conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed the offence and none else. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the accused had committed the offence and on the basis of the aforestated material, in our opinion, it would be dangerous to convict the accused.”
10. There is no eyewitness who could tell the Court how Pushpa Devi suffered burn injuries in her matrimonial house. From the records, we find that Pushpa Devi was first admitted in a hospital at Kargali and thereafter she was taken to Bokaro General Hospital for better treatment, but she could not survive burn injuries and succumbed to death on 29th August 1997. Next day, the dead body of Pushpa Devi was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted at 04:00 PM on 30th August 1997. Dr. Awanish Kumar Choudhary who conducted the postmortem examination was not called to prove the postmortem report – even postmortem report was not tendered in evidence.
11. The defence set up by the appella
