Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
A. M. BADAR and RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
(2.8.2022)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.437 of 2014
Sonu Akhtar Khan : Appellant
Vs.
State of Bihar : Respondent
Criminal Law–Circumstantial evidence–Court is required to look for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a complete sequence pointing out guilt of accused–In such cases, Court is required to adopt a cautious approach and great care is required to be taken in evaluating such evidence–Inference of guilt can be justified in a case based on circumstantial evidence only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person–If evidence in nature of circumstances relied on by prosecution is reasonably capable of two inferences, one in favour of accused is required to be accepted. (Paras 8 and 10)
Criminal Law–Circumstantial evidence–Last-seen theory comes into play where time-gap between point of time when accused and deceased were last seen alive and when deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than accused being author of crime becomes impossible–In absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that accused and deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases–Courts should look for some corroboration. (Para 11)
Indian Penal Code, 1860–Sections 364A, 302, 120B and 201–Indian Evidence Act, 1872–Sections 25 and 26–Kidnapping for ransom, murder. conspiracy and screening of evidence–Conviction and sentence–Circumstantial evidence–Trial Court has not only allowed entire confessional statement of accused to be proved through Investigating Officer but has also acted upon the same–Approach of Trial Court is ex-facie illegal–Way of obtaining self-incriminating inadmissible confessional statement of accused clearly offends provision of Article 20(3) of Constitution and it cannot be made use of as a circumstance to connect accused to crime in question–It was incumbent on part of prosecution to take up audio-forensic investigation by conducting voice analysis test in order to ascertain whether voice of person demanding ransom is matching with that of accused–This evidence is not forthcoming–Prosecution has utterly failed to prove charge against accused entitling him to acquittal–Prosecution has failed to establish circumstance that it was accused who took deceased on that day and within a short time thereafter, deceased was found dead–Impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence imposed on appellant/accused quashed and set aside and appellant/accused acquitted. (Paras 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27)
Nepali Yadav vs. State of Bihar, Selvi vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263; Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 79; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of U.P. vs. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114; Ramareddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172; Selvi vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263; Venkatesh @ Chandra vs. State of Karnataka, (2022) SCC Online SC 765–Relied.
A. M. BADAR, J.:–By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused Sonu Akhtar Khan is challenging the judgment and order dated 14th March 2014 and 22nd March 2014 respectively, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, in Sessions Case No. 29 of 2012/27 of 2012, thereby convicting him of offences punishable under Sections 364A, 302, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. For the reasons best known to it, the learned trial court had not sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentence to suffer imprisonment for life apart from imposition of fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, similar sentence was imposed on him. For the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years apart from fine of of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to in the original capacity as an accused.
2. Facts in brief leading to the prosecution of the accused, projected from the police report, can be summarized thus:—
(a) Accused Sonu Akhtar Khan had married daughter of Sakir Khan, resident of village Dariyapur No. 2 falling under jurisdiction of the Police Station Sangrampur of East Champaran District. He was residing with his in-laws at that village. First informant/PW 8 Meraz Khan was neighbor of Sakir Khan being resident of village Dariyapur No. 2. Salman Khan (since deceased) was son of First Informant/PW 8 Meraz Khan. He was friend of accused Sonu Akhtar Khan. According to the prosecution case, Sonu Akhtar Khan wanted to go to Saudi Arabia and was in need of money. Therefore, he along with his friends, namely, Pawan Pandey and Dheeraj Pandey hatched conspiracy to abduct Salman Khan for demand of ransom from his relatives. That is how, according to the prosecution case, on 18.06.2011, accused Sonu Akhtar Khan went to the house of Salman Khan (since deceased) and took him. At the canal of the village, Salman Khan was made to drink liquor in excessive quantity. He was then confined at the house of Pawan Pandey. Calls for demanding ransom were made to brothers of Salman Khan and for his release, an amount of Rs. 700000/- came to be demanded. Subsequently, Salman Khan was confined at the house of Dheeraj. As name of the accused has started surfacing in the matter of missing of Salman Khan, the accused took him to the field of Arun Srivastava. Salman Khan was killed there on 29.06.2011 by slashing his neck by a sharp edged weapon. His dead body was buried in the said field. The ‘Kudal’ used for digging the soil for burying the dead body was then kept in the Bamboo hut belonging to PW 4 Heera Sharma as its handle was broken in the said process.
(b) PW 1 Iklaque Khan and PW 7 Ekraj Khan are brothers of Salman Khan. They were staying at Delhi. On 24.06.2011, they got a phone call from the accused demanding ransom of rupees seven lakhs for releasing Salman Khan. In the meanwhile, their father PW8 Meraj Khan had informed the fact of missing of Salman Khan to his son PW 1 Eklaque Khan. Therefore, PW Eklaque Khan along with his brother PW 7 Ekraj Khan started proceeding to their village Dariyapur No. 2. When they reached Motihari Railway Station on 26.06.2011, they received telephone call from the accused demanding ransom of rupees seven lakhs for releasing their brother Salman Khan. On return to their village, they accompanied their father PW8 Meraj Khan for lodging the FIR of the crime in question.
(c) On 01.07.2011 PW 8 Meraj Khan lodged report of the incident to PW 10 Rajnish Kumar, Police Station Office, Sangrampur, at his own house at Dariyapur No. 2. That is how Crime No. 65 of 2011 for the offence
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
The main legal point established is the requirement for corroborative evidence to establish guilt, the limitations of the memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the inadmissib....
It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person accused of committing an offence, is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstan....
The judgment establishes that circumstantial evidence, including the last seen together principle and admissibility of disclosure statements, can be sufficient for a murder conviction, provided there....
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, requiring all circumstantial evidence to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
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
