Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Ambuj Nath, JJ.
Lalita Banara @ Patagai Banara – Appellant
versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 698 of 2014
Decided on 4.8.2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/201 – Murder of child and screening of evidence – Life sentence – Cause of death is not even remotely connected with manner of occurrence as scraped out from ocular evidence – There are no eye-witnesses to occurrence and only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, appellant has been convicted – Prosecution has been unable to produce those witnesses who would have been the best witnesses to throw light on what actually had transpired – Witnesses have also not stated about any instrument found from possession of appellant – Post mortem report is not a substantive piece of evidence though, evidence of Doctor is – Doctor has not been examined and post mortem report has been exhibited by taking recourse to Section 294 Cr.P.C. – Though it is not a substantive piece of evidence and even though doctor has not been examined by prosecution, corroborative nature of post mortem report cannot get diminished – Post mortem report reveals multiple injuries on person of deceased but none of witnesses seems to have any knowledge of injuries sustained – Prosecution has been unable to establish chain of circumstances from which guilt of appellant could be inferred – Benefit of doubt has to be extended to appellant – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18)
Result: Appeal allowed. Appellant acquitted.
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2009 passed by Sri R. K. Srivastava, Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. V), West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S. T. No. 313 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C.
3. The fard beyan of Manjura Banra was recorded on 14.07.2008 at 1:00 P.M. in which he has stated that Lalita Banra (appellant) was married to Chambaru Birua about five years back. Lalita Banra had a two and a half old year son namely, Rohit Birua from her first husband. The first husband of Lalita Banra had left her about three years back and about a week back Lalita Banra had solemnized another marriage with Lebiya Sawaiya. But Lebiya Sawaiya was not ready to keep the child with him. On 07.07.2008, Lebiya Sawaiya took Lalita Banra with him, but left the child in the house of the informant. The child used to cry as he needed breast feeding. On 13.07.2008 at about 11:00 AM, the informant along with one Ramai Pingua and Rohit Birua went to the house of Lebiya Sawaiya. It has been stated that Lebiya Sawaiya went to the village to purchase Hadia and in the meantime, Lalita Banra had taken the child and gone towards the eastern side of the house. In the meantime, Lebiya Sawaiya came back and enquired about Lalita Banra and he was told that Lalita had gone out with child in her arms. It is alleged that after 10-15 minutes, Lalita Banra and Lebiya Sawaiya came back, but the child was not with them. On being repeatedly asked about the child, Lalita Banra had disclosed that the child has been killed by drowning him in the water, at which all of them went to the place of occurrence and Lebiya Sawaiya took the child out of the water. On the next day, the Munda of the village was informed about the incident. It is also alleged that Lebiya Sawaiya had threatened that if she keeps the child, he will not keep her and it was the reason for Lalita Banra to have committed the murder of her son.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Manjhari (Tantnagar O.P.) P. S. Case No. 23 of 2008 was instituted against Lalita Banra for the offences under Sections 302/201 of Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S. T. No. 313 of 2008. Charges were framed against the sole accused under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. which was read over and explained to her in Hindi to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case.
P.W. 1 – Manjura Banra is the informant and the brother of the accused Lalita Banra @ Patagai Banra. He has deposed that the marriage of his sister was solemnized with Chambaru Birua and out of the said wedlock, a son was born who was named Rohit Birua. After Chambaru had left his sister, her son started residing in the house of this witness. His sister had solemnized a second marriage in Chitimiti village and after the marriage, she went to live in Chitimiti village, but she left her son in his house. He had thereafter taken the child to her sister’s place. There were two elderly persons present in the house and her brother-in-law had gone to call someone and his sister had returned from work. The child was handed over to his sister. It has been stated that all of them were sitting when his sister Lalita Banra went somewhere with the child. She returned after some time, but the child was not with her. When everyone started searching for the child, his dead body was found in the water which was taken out by Lalita Banra and there
Murder – Post mortem report is not a substantive piece of evidence though, evidence of Doctor is.
The main legal point established is the requirement for reliable and corroborated evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.
The court affirmed that the testimony of a child witness can be credible and sufficient for conviction, supported by corroborative forensic evidence, establishing homicide over suicide.
The judgment establishes that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the absence of a direct witness does not preclude a conviction if the circumstantial evidence is compelling and the accused fails to....
The necessity of proving the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent testimonies to establish guilt under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
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
