Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 851
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
I.A. ANSARI, GOPAL PRASAD, JJ.
BISHO SAO @ BISHESHWAR SAO & ORS. - APPELLANTS
VS.
THE STATE OF BIHAR - RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 192, 289, 318 & 331 of 2008
Decided on : 24-04-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Mohan, Mr. Praveen Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Sharma, Mr. S.C. Mishra, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable and corroborated evidence in criminal cases, particularly in cases involving serious charges such as murder.
Headnote:
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 34, 201, 498A - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of accused-appellants under Sections 302, 34, 201, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case revolved around the death of Radha Devi, who was married to accused Munna Sao. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded a gold chain and ring from Radha Devi's parents and threatened to kill her if the demands were not fulfilled. The accused-appellants were convicted based on the prosecution's evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including testimonies from witnesses and the informant, was unreliable and lacked corroboration. The court noted that the evidence of demand for gold chain and ring was hearsay and could not be relied upon. The court also highlighted discrepancies in the evidence, such as conflicting accounts of Radha Devi's condition and the removal of her dead body. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues in the case included the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, the lack of corroboration for crucial testimonies, and the absence of clear and convincing evidence to support the charges against the accused-appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the hearsay nature of certain testimonies and the lack of corroboration, did not meet the legal standard for establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the possibility of suicide and the absence of clear evidence of homicide, which raised doubts about the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the accused-appellants under the benefit of doubt. The bail bonds of the acquitted accused-appellants were cancelled, and their sureties were discharged. The accused-appellant in custody was directed to be released, if not required in connection with any other case.
I.A. Ansari, J.
Under challenge, in the present appeals, is the judgment, dated 30.01.2008, of conviction, in Sessions Trial No. 381 of 1992, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Lakhisarai, and the order, dated 31.01.2008, whereby various sentences have been passed against the accused-appellants.
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has convicted all the accused-appellants, namely, Bisho Sao @ Bisheshwar Sao, Arun Sao, Pramod Sao, Munna Sao and Binod Sao, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 201 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. While the accused-appellants stand sentenced, for their conviction under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, they stand sentenced, for their conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and all of them, further, stand sentenced, for their conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, undergo imprisonment for 1 (one) year, all the sentences having been directed to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be set out as under:-
(i) Radha Devi, daughter of the informant, Ram Prasad Sao (PW 8), was married to accused Munna Sao, their marriage having been solemnized, on 23.05.1991, according to Hindu rites and customs. In the marriage, apart from giving to Rahya Devi, a sum of Rs. 8,000/-, in cash, gold nose pin, one wrist watch, clothes and utensils, the informant also gave to his daughter, Radha Devi, gold and silver ornaments.
(ii) The informant’s daughter, Radha Devi, lived for a month at her matrimonial house. The accused Munna Sao, husband of Radha Devi (since deceased) and his family members had been demanding gold chain and gold ring from Radha Devi’s father and used to assault her for her inability to bring the gold chain and gold ring from her parental home. Banarasi Sao (PW 2), co-brother-in-law of the informant, used to come to the house of the informant and used to tell the informant that the accused aforementioned were demanding gold chain and gold ring and that for non-fulfillment of their demand, they were threatening to kill Radha Devi. On the occasion of Naag Panchmi, accused Munna Sao, husband of Radha Devi (since deceased), came to the house of the informant and, at the time of their departure, he (accused Munna Sao) demanded gold chain and gold ring. Responding to the demand so raised, the informant told accused Munna Sao that he (informant) had solemnized the marriage of his daughter by taking loan and that he would give to accused Munna Sao what he had been demanding, when he (informant) becomes financially capable of doing so.
(iii) On 20.08.1991, on hearing that Radha Devi had died, Banarsi Sao (PW 2) went to the house of accused Munna Sao and saw Radha Devi lying dead, on a charpai (cot), on the upper floor of her matrimonial house. He (PW 2) noticed marks on the neck of the deceased, Radha Devi.
(iv) Having come from the house of the accused persons, Banarsi Sao (PW 2) sent his son, Birbal Sao (PW 3), to the parental house of the said deceased to inform her parents about her death and, on the same day, i.e., on 20.08.1991, at about 07:00 PM, Birbal Sao (PW 3) came to the house of the informant and told him that the in-laws of Radha Devi had called him (informant) as Radha Devi was indisposed and saline drips were being administered to her (Radha Devi) at the hospital.
(v) On receiving the information so given, when the informant, along with his brothers, Narayan Sao (PW 4), Ram Awtar Sao (PW 6), Ramashish Sao (PW 7) and his father, namely, Sitaram Sao (PW 5), reached the matrimonial house of his daughter, Radha Devi, th
