Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, JJ.
Bijendra Nonia - Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent/s
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.200 of 1990
Decided On : 15-05-2013
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302, 201 of the IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code, Section 302, 201 - The court discussed the principles of appreciating circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of extra judicial confessional statements. The judgment elaborated on the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the importance of the accused's explanation during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302, 201 of the IPC for the murder of his wife. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including an extra judicial confessional statement made by the appellant and the recovery of the victim's body at his instance. The defence denied the occurrence and raised issues regarding the identification of the body, the absence of eye witnesses, and the motive for the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the postmortem report, and the inquest report to be credible and reliable. The court also considered the principles of appreciating circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of extra judicial confessional statements. The court held that the chain of circumstances, the conduct of the appellant, and his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. led to the conclusion of his guilt.
Issues: The issues included the identification of the victim's body, the absence of eye witnesses, the motive for the crime, and the admissibility of extra judicial confessional statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of appreciating circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of extra judicial confessional statements, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The court also highlighted the importance of the accused's explanation during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's bail was cancelled with a direction to surrender before the lower court to serve the remaining part of the sentences.
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
1. Challenge in this appeal is judgment dated 17.05.1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1989 whereby and whereunder sole appellant Bijendra Nonia has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302, 201 of the IPC and directed to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as imprisonment for a period of 5 years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.
2. Prosecution case in short as per fardbeyan (Exhibit-3) of Bigu Nonia (PW-2) recorded on 01-11-1988 at Madupur Harijan Tola at about 12:00 noon disclosing therein that he had married his daughter Dulariya Devi (deceased) about 15-16 years ago in her childhood with Bijendra Nonia son of Balkeshwar Nonia of Baddikhurd, P.S.-Barun. Since then his daughter was on visiting term. She had begotten two children. His son-in-law Bijendra Nonia was employed at Khudiya Koliyari. About a month ago, on previous Monday at about 12 noon Bijendra Nonia came to him at Basta Kola Koliyari and divulged that his daughter has met with an accident and is admitted at Dehri Hospital. On this information, he along with his son-in-law proceeded through bus from Dhanbad to Dehri. At about 04:00 AM when the bus reached at Aurangabad, his son-in-law disclosed that his daughter had not met with accident therefore it will be useless to go to Dehri. After saying this his son-in-law got down from the bus and went. On this he became apprehensive with regard to welfare his daughter. He also got down and proceeded towards house of his son-in-law from Aurangabad and during midst thereof, he took company of Ramnath Singh from village-Soris. After arrival at Baddi Khurd he met with his son-in-law who on query disclosed that his daughter is no more. He further disclosed that he had murdered her because of her bad character. He did not respond when he was asked about the dead body. Then he proceeded towards P.S. but met the police official in midst of way and expressed apprehension that his daughter has been killed by his son-in-law and dead body has been concealed.
3. After registering Barun P.S. Case No.154 of 1988 the police took up investigation. After completing the investigation charge sheet was submitted under Section 302, 201 of the IPC whereupon the sole appellant Bijendra Nonia faced the trial and ultimately got conviction and sentence, the subject matter of instant appeal.
4. The defence case as is evident from the mode of cross-examination as well as statement as recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of innocence as well as complete denial of the occurrence. It has further been stated that deceased had died at her Naihar on 18.08.1988. As the appellant declined to accept offer of informant to remarry the younger sister of the deceased, so there arose dispute. When there was demand on behalf of appellant to return back the ornaments, then and then only, instant case has been filed just by way of retaliation. To support the same there has been examination of D.Ws along with exhibit of the documents.
5. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution had examined altogether seven PWs out of whom PW-1 is Ram Nath Singh, PW-2 is Bigu Nonia, PW-3 is Ishwari Singh, P.W.-4 is Ram Pravesh Singh, PW-5 is Kamta Singh, PW-6 is Ranvir Minj and P.W.-7 is Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad. The prosecution had also exhibited Exhibit-1 signature of Ramnath Singh over inquest report, Exhibit-2 Series is the signature of Kamta Singh as well as Awdhesh over inquest report, seizure list respectively. Exhibit-3 is fardbeyan, Exhibit-4 is formal FIR, Exhibit-5 is inquest report, Exhibit-6 is seizure list, Exhibit-7 is Sketch Map, Exhibit-8 is postmortem report. Piece of bangle happens to be material Exhibit-I. Defence had also examined two DWs out of whom DW 1 is Dr. Upendra Singh a homeopathic doctor while DW 2 is Ram Chandra Mahto. Exhibit-A happens to be the r
AI
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
