Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ashwani Kumar Singh and Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, JJ.
Chandra Shekhar — Appellant
versus
State of Bihar through the Director
General of Police —Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 480 of 2012
Decided on 11.5.2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Acquittal from charge under Section 304-B, IPC – Appellant is husband of deceased lady – Court finds no material in evidence of prosecution witnesses to support prosecution case that appellant had killed his wife – None of them have suggested any motive – Post-mortem report showing 100% injury cannot be sole basis to conclude that it was not an accidental fire – Only on the basis of post-mortem report there cannot be conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. – Whole prosecution evidence is full of contradictions and has miserably failed to prove prosecution case – Under these circumstances, trial court has seriously erred in drawing adverse inference against appellant for solitary reason that he had not come out with an explanation as to what happened inside house – While proving charge under Section 302, I.P.C. there was no presumption to be drawn – No incriminating material in form of any evidence on this point was placed before appellant in course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of appellant – In absence of clear evidence it would not be possible to record a finding of guilt of appellant for charge under Section 302 of IPC – Judgment of conviction set aside. (Paras 32, 34, 35, 40 and 41)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—The present criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th April, 2012 and 01.05.2012 respectively. The sole appellant has though been acquitted for the charge under Section 304-B I.P.C., has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant has been ordered to undergo rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000 has been imposed upon him.
2. The prosecution story starts with the written information of one Dr. Sharat Kumar Singh (P.W.8) who happened to be the father of the deceased. He lodged the First Information Report with K. Hat Police Station in the district of Purnea on 16.07.2003 in respect of the alleged occurrence which took place on 13.07.2003 at about 8:30 P.M. as told to him by the residents of the Bank Colony.
The informant claimed that his daughter, who was an employee of the State Bank of Indian was posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Zonal Office of Purnea. She was allotted quarter no. B./3-9 in the State Bank Colony, Purnea. She was married to this appellant in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The appellant who is son-in-law of the informant was serving as a Probationary Officer in the Bank of Baroda and both the husband and wife were residing together in the State Bank Colony quarter. The informant claims that on 13.07.2003 at about 9:00 P.M. when he was in his house at Sarsi, his son Abhishek Kumar Singh telephonically informed him that his daughter Priyanka has suffered burnt and died, the police had locked the quarter. The informant claims that he reached Purnea Hospital where he came to know from his son-in-law (the appellant) that Priyanka caught fire while lightening the lantern. P.W.8 claimed that he gave this fact in writing to police as was told to him by his son-in-law but on 15.07.2003 he came to know in course of inquiry from the residents of Bank Colony that his daughter had not died of an accidental fire rather knowingly her husband had murdered her. The informant lodged the F.I.R. saying that investigation be done by taking into consideration this fact. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was registered under Section 304-B/302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. On the basis of the aforementioned F.I.R. the police conducted investigation and submitted a charge-sheet. Cognizance was taken and thereafter the charges were framed against the sole appellant under Section 304-B I.P.C. as also under Section 302 I.P.C.
4. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 12 witnesses. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased, P.W.2 is the maternal uncle, P.W.3 is the cousin sister, P.W.4 is the mother and P.W.8 is the father of the deceased. P.W.5, P.W.6 & P.W.7 were the independent witnesses residing in the Bank’s colony who have turned hostile in course of trial. P.W.9 and P.W.11 are the doctors namely, Dr. Ajay Kumar and Dr. Satyendra Kumar Singh who were posted as Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Purnea on 14.07.2003 and they had conducted the post-mortem (Exhibit-6). P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer whereas P.W.12 is the brother-in-law of the informant.
5. On behalf of the defence Dr. Y.K. Sharma (D.W.1) who was also a Medical Officer posted at Sadar Hospital, Purnea and had treated the appellant at Sadar Hospital, Purnea and one Ram Chandra Singh (D.W.2) who was a doctor at Apolo Burn Hospital, Kankarbagh, Patna and had treated the appellant have been examined.
6. The sole accused–appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant explained that why he had tried to save Priyanka who came in the drawing room in burning conditions. He also explained that his relationship with his wife and her family members were very cordial, both of them were in job and there was no dearth of anything, therefore there was no question of killing her. He suffered burn injuries in course of saving her for which he was treated at Purnea, Patna and Delhi.
7. The learned trial court
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
