Back
1990 Supreme(Pat) 429
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha and R.N.Sahay JJ.
Lilo Mahto
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1988 ;
Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1988 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 5, 1990
In order to convict an accused person based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must satisfy certain conditions, including that the circumstances must be fully established, point unerringly towards the guilt of the accused, and be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 201, 120-B OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CONDITIONS FOR CONVICTION - INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE - ACQUITTAL OF APPELLANTS.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Somar Mahto, was last seen in the company of the appellants at a market. His dead body was later found on the bank of a river. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had conspired to kill the deceased due to various motives, including land disputes and illicit relationships.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the only evidence that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants was not enough to establish their guilt, especially since two other accused persons who were also seen with the deceased had been acquitted by the trial court.
Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the motive on the part of the appellants to commit murder of the deceased was common.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in order to convict an accused person based on circumstantial evidence, the following conditions must be satisfied: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established; (ii) the circumstances should be of a definite tendency and unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances taken cumulative, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none-else; (iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused persons; (v) the circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent to the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
Final Decision: The court allowed both appeals and set aside the judgment and conviction passed by the trial court. The appellants were discharged from their bail bonds.
S.B.Sinha, J.
1. These two Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment, dated 24th March, 1988 passed by Sri M. L. Visa, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 115/84, whereby and whereunder, the said learned court convicted the appella nts under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 120-B thereof.
2. In Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1988 (R), Sundar Bhogta, Rewat Bhogta, Terali Mian and Basarat Mian are the appellants whereas in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1988 (R) only Lilo Mahto is the appellant.
3. The aforementioned five appellants stood their trial alongwith Tikar Bhogta and Tulsi Bhogta under Sections 302/201, 120-B and 379 of of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The aforementioned Tikar Bhogta and Tulsi Bhogta have been acquitted by the learned court below by the judgment impugned in these appeals.
5. The short fact leading to lodging of the first information report by Munshi Mahto (PW 8) son of the deceased Somar Mahto at 8 a.m on 19-7-1983 is that allegedly Basarat Mian and Tulsi Bhogta (since acquitted) went to the house of Somar Mahto and requested him to accompany them to Jamua Hat where they were to purchase she-buffalo, on the pretext that the deceased was known to the cattle dealers and with his help, they can buy the cattle on credit. According to the aforementioned requests of Tulsi Bhogta and Basart Mian, the deceased accompanied them left for Jamua Hat, but he did not return on that date. He also did aot return on the next day hence the informant and his family members started searching for him, in course whereof, they came to learn that on the preceding Thursday, PW 5, Bhairo Mahto had seen the deceased at Jamua Hat at about 4 p.m.
6. It was further alleged that PW 5 asked the deceased to return to his home but the accused persons did not allow him to return saying that they had brought him from his house and they would reach him there.
7. Allegedly, the accused persons were having deliberations amongst themselves. It was further alleged that informant thereafter went to the house of his brother-in-law at Jamua but there also could not get any information about the deceased.
8. It was farther alleged that thereafter, he went to Argaghat and came to know from the daughter of one Kanakhya Naraia Baidya that the dead body of his father was lying on the bank of river Usri at Kirtaniaghat The informant rushed there and found the dead body of his father with some injuries thereon.
9. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses.
10. PW 1, Dasrath Gope, PW 9, Dr. Sibnarain Prasad and PW 10, Kapildeo Sharma are formal witnesses. PW 6, Jubli Devi was tendered. PW 4 Govind Mahto was declared hostile. PW 2, Karamchand Mahto is a minor son of the deceased Somar Mahto, who is a hearsay witness. PW 3, Amia Devi is the wife of the deceased. PW 8, Munshi Mahto is the informant and PW 5, Bhairo Mahto, as indicated hereinbefore, is a cousin brother of deceased (Somar Mahto).
11. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 8, in their deposition stated about appellants Basarath Mian and Tulsi Bhogta coming to their house and taking the deceased with them.
12. PW 3 further stated that when the deceased did not return on Thursday, she had inquired from appellant Basarat, who denied to have accompanied the deceased to the Hat. She further stated that her family was not in good terms with the appellants and they have land disputes with the appellants, Lilo Mahto and Basarath. She further stated that Basarath and Tulsi had some illicit relationship with wife of Lilo, who happened to be Mama of her husband.
13. PW 8, in his deposition stated about his meeting with PW 5 and allegedly came to learn that his father was seen in the company of all the accused persons at about 4 p m. on 14-7-1983 at Jamua Hat. He further alleged that he had gone to the house of one Kamakhya Narain Vaidya at Giridih and from there he came to learn from his minor daughter about the discovery of his fathers dead body a
