2021 Supreme(Pat) 243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ashwani Kumar Singh, Arvind Srivastava, JJ.
State Of Bihar - Appellant
Versus
Nasruddin Mian @ Lalu @ Nasiruddin Ahmad - Respondent
Death Reference No. 1 of 2019; Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 425 of 2019, 499 of 2019
Decided On : 21-06-2021

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A and 304-B – Cruelty and dowry death – Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC are not mutually exclusive – They deal with two distinct offences – A person charged and acquitted under Section 304-B of IPC can be convicted under Section 498-A of IPC without charge being framed, if such a case is made out – But from point of view of practice and procedure and to avoid technical defects, it is necessary in such cases to frame charges under both sections and if case is established against accused, they can be convicted under both Sections but no separate sentence need be awarded under Section 498-A in view of substantive sentence being awarded for major offence under Section 304-B. (Para 84)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 216 and 217 – Alteration of charge – Provisions prescribed under Sections 216 and 217 of Cr.P.C require court to ensure that no prejudice is caused to accused in the event of addition or alteration of charge and he is provided with a fair trial. (Para 89)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proof – Burden to prove guilt of accused is always on prosecution and burden never shifts – Section 106 does not relieve prosecution of its initial burden – On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases on which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for prosecution to establish facts which are especially within knowledge of accused or which he could prove without any difficulty or inconvenience – Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying in same room – Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act does not absolve prosecution from discharging its general and primary burden of proving case beyond reasonable doubt – It is only when prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or, which makes out a prima facie case, that question would arise of considering facts of which burden of proof may lie upon accused. (Paras 114, 117 and 118)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 201/34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-B – Cruelty, dowry death and disappearance of evidence – Death sentence – Original charge under Sections 498-A, 306 and 201/34 of IPC was altered to Sections 304-B, 302 and 201/34 of the IPC – Trial court did not allow prayer of informant regarding addition of Sections 304-B and 302 of IPC to original charge already framed against them meaning thereby that due to alteration of original charge, charge under Sections 498-A and 306 became non-existent – Trial Court held that case under Section 306 of IPC is not made out – After alteration of charge, since there was no charge under Section 306 of IPC, there was no occasion for Trial Court to have recorded such finding in respect of Section 306 of IPC – While passing impugned judgment, Trial Court had misconceived that appellants were also being tried for original charge framed under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC – Trial Court has not only convicted and sentenced appellants for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC under which effectively they were not charged, but also convicted and sentenced them for offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC – Since altered charge was for graver offences under Sections 302 and 304-B of IPC, withholdment of witnesses from further cross-examination has certainly caused prejudice to accused persons – They have been deprived from cross-examining those witnesses in respect of substituted charge – Their deposition cannot form basis for arriving at conclusion of guilt for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 302 of IPC – There is complete lack of direct evidence of murder of deceased – Conviction of appellants is purely based on circumstantial evidence – Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, but it should be tested on touchstone of law relating to proof beyond reasonable doubt – Right from beginning till conclusion of investigation, investigating agency did not find any material in support of homicidal death of deceased – Prosecution has even failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that death was homicidal – Since it is a case of circumstantial evidence, proof of motive would be an important corroborative piece of evidence – Evidence on record does not show any proof that deceased was ever subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry or there was illicit relationship between appellants – Prosecution has utterly failed to prove motive beyond doubt – In absence of legally admissible evidence, trial court has convicted appellants under Section 302 of IPC merely on moral ground, as wife of appellant had died in her matrimonial home – In absence of fulfillment of essential ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC, conviction of appellants under Section 304-B of IPC cannot be upheld – Mere suspicion is not sufficient to bring home charge under Section 201 of IPC – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside. (Paras 48, 80, 82, 83, 85, 96, 99, 100, 109, 119, 123, 124, 125, 143, 144, 149 and 150)

Judgment – While writing a judgment, a Judge is required to keep certain basic rules in mind – Supreme requirement of a judgment is reason which is rational to conclusion – Reasoning is mental process through which a Judge reaches to his conclusion – All conclusions should be supported by reasons duly recorded – Finding of fact should be based on legal testimony and should be based on legal grounds – Neither finding of fact nor decision should be based upon wild suspicion, hypothetical presumption, surmises and conjectures – While commenting on conduct of parties, a Judge is required to be careful to use sober and restrained language – He should avoid use of disparaging and derogatory remarks against any person whose case may be under consideration before him – A Court while writing judgment has a onerous task of being dispassionate in assessing evidence – Indulging in trial and error in arriving at a decision making tends to cloud cognitive space with attendant cognitive biases – Clouded mind then tends to fit in causal chain to prototypes based on biologically and socially evolved capacities; social pressures, individual motivations and emotions – In making decision a Judge is required to avoid intuitive/reflexive outcome based on causal chain of events available and focus on deliberative aspect of decision making otherwise Judge would tend to draw illusory correlation between chain of events and the reflexive outcome – Decision making requires a certain level of motivation and cognitive capacity of a Judge – A well trained mind of a Judge along with self realization of available biases occupying his cognitive space would help a Judge avoid pit falls of heuristic and avoid distorted thinking leading to a more balanced and rational outcome. (Paras 75, 76 and 78)