Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
I. A. ANSARI, NILU AGRAWAL, JJ.
Ram Bahadur Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.69, 70, 151 and 155 of 1993
Decided on : 24-04-2015
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONVICTION - SECTION 302/201/34 IPC AND SECTION 3/4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL - INCRIMINATING CIRCUMSTANCES - JUDICIAL CONFESSION - SECTION 164 CRPC - VOLUNTARY CONFESSION - SECTION 32(1) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - HEARSAY EVIDENCE - HELD, THE JUDICIAL CONFESSION WAS INADMISSIBLE AS IT WAS NOT VOLUNTARY AND THE EVIDENCE WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND DID NOT PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - APPEAL ALLOWED - ACCUSED ACQUITTED.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the deceased Urmila Singh was killed by the accused-appellants due to dowry demands. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including a judicial confession by one of the accused, and the recovery of the deceased's body from a field pointed out by the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed that the deceased had committed suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the judicial confession was inadmissible as it was not voluntary and was not recorded in accordance with the requirements of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also held that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court further held that the evidence of the deceased's brother regarding the deceased's allegations of cruelty was hearsay and inadmissible as the cause of death was not in question.
Issues: 1. Whether the judicial confession was admissible in evidence? 2. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 3. Whether the evidence of the deceased's brother regarding the deceased's allegations of cruelty was admissible?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A judicial confession is admissible in evidence only if it is voluntary and is recorded in accordance with the requirements of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused only if it is consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence. 3. Evidence of a deceased person's statements regarding their treatment by the accused is hearsay and inadmissible unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule, such as Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused were acquitted of all charges.
I. A. ANSARI, J.
Under challenge, in the present appeals, is the judgment and order, dated 10.03.1993, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 339 of 1989, by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas, at Sasaram, whereby various sentences have been passed against the accused-appellants.
2. By the impugned judgment under appeal, the learned trial Court has convicted all the accused-appellants, namely, Ram Bahadur Singh, Taluka Devi, Santosh Kumar Mehta, Jitendra Kumar Singh, Mundrika Singh, Murli Singh, Ram Awadh Singh and Ram Bachan Singh, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all the accused-appellants, except accused-appellant Taluka Devi, have been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, too. By the judgment under appeal, the accused-appellant, Santosh Kumar Mehta, stands further convicted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. While all the accused-appellants aforementioned stand sentenced, for their conviction under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer imprisonment for life, all the accused-appellants, except accused-appellant Taluka Devi, stand sentenced, for their conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and accused-appellant, Santosh Kumar Mehta, further stands sentenced, for his conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus:
(i) Deceased Urmila Singh, married to accused Santosh Kumar Mehta, in the year 1982, was the daughter of PW 7 (Jawahar Lal Singh). While accused Jitendra Singh is younger brother of accused Santosh Kumar Mehta, accused Mundrika Singh is cousin of accused Santosh Kumar Mehta. While accused Ram Bahadur Singh is the father-in-law of the said deceased, accused Taluka Devi is the mother-in-law of the said deceased. The remaining accused, namely, Murli Singh, Ram Awadh Singh and Ram Bachan Singh, are the co-villagers of accused Santosh Kumar Mehta.
(ii) Deceased Urmila Singh’s ‘gauna’ (i.e., the ceremonial departure of the bride from the house of her parents to her matrimonial house) was performed, on 14.12.1988. Following her ‘gauna’, Urmila Singh was taken to her matrimonial house, at village Bank, by accused Santosh Kumar Mehta.
(iii) PW 3 (Shiv Kumar Singh) came, sometime in the month of February, 1989, to the house of his in-laws at village Bank and he also went to visit his cousin, Urmila Singh, at her matrimonial house. When PW 3 reached the matrimonial house of Urmila Singh, he did not find Urmila and her husband (i.e., accused Santosh Kumar Mehta) there, but he (PW 3) met Urmila’s parents-in-law. While Taluka Devi, mother-in-law of Urmila Singh told PW 3 that Urmila’s brother had taken her to Bhopal, PW 3 was informed by accused Ram Bahadur Singh, father-in-law of Urmila Singh, that Urmila Singh had been taken by her husband (i.e., accused Santosh Kumar Mehta), to Banaras. These contradictory information, which were given to PW 3 by the parents-in-law of Urmila Singh, made PW 3 suspicious and he expressed his suspicion to his father-in-law, Ram Muni Singh (PW 1), whereupon Ram Muni Singh (PW 1), accompanied by his wife, went to the house of accused Ram Bahadur Singh. On enquiry, Ram Bahadur Singh said that Urmila’s brother had taken her to Bhopal, but when PW 1 made enquiry from accused Taluka Singh, she told that her son, accused Santosh Kumar Mehta, has taken Urmila Singh to Banaras.
(iv) On returning home, PW 1 asked PW 3 to send a telegram to Urmila’s father, Jawahar Lal Singh (PW 7), who used to live in Bhopal. PW 3 accordingly sent a telegram to Jawahar Lal Singh (PW 7). The telegram was received by PW 7 (Jawahar Lal Singh), on 10.02.1989, informing him that Urmila Singh was ill. PW 7, therefore, came to village Bank and lear
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
