IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUDHIR SINGH and CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1058, 482 of 2016
(22.6.2023)
Md. Rehan (in 1058)
Md. Azaz @ Babo (in 482) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
(in both)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 D, 302 & 201 read with Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 4 & 6 – Appellants alleged to have raped and killed the victim – there are severe inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the time from which the victim is alleged to have been missing – even considering the testimony of PW 5 to be true on its face value, the shortest time gap since the victim went missing and the consequent recovery of her dead body from a public place is too wide to apply the last seen theory in the case – there is absence of sufficient material to apply the 'last seen theory' in the present case description of articles seized by the Investigating Officer during the course of trial do not tally with the description of articles mentioned in the FSL report – rather, the FSL report contains findings with regard to articles which were neither seized nor sent for examination in their case – mismatch between the FSL report and the seizure lists causes a major dent on the story of prosecution – as deposed by the PW 13 (informant) PW 2 and PW 5 informed him that the appellants offered chocolates and biscuits to the victim and played with the victim – however the informant has not made any statement about such course of events in the FIR – there is failure on the part of the prosecution to subject the appellants to medical examination, as provided under Section 53 A of CrPC – as held by the Supreme Court, medical examination of the appellant under section 53 A of Cr.PC would enable the court to ascertain the involvement of appellants and where there is failure to subject the appellants to medical examination, it would create a gap in the chain of circumstances – prosecution has miserably failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the connecting chain of circumstances as to unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellants – both the appeals allowed – judgement of conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 9 to 14)
(2010) 13 SCC 657 paras 31 and 37, (2019) 12 SC 460, (2011) 7 SCC 130, 2022 SCC Online SC 1313, Cr. App. No. 1636 – 1637 of 2023 (SC) Cr. App. No. 575 of 2011 (SC) – Referred.
Sudhir Singh, J.—Both the criminal appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction dated 31.03.2016 and order of sentence dated 04.04.2016, hence after being heard together, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. By the judgment of conviction dated 31.03.2016 and order of sentence dated 04.04.2016 passed by Sri Satyendra Rajak, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Purnea in Session Trial No. 03 of 2014, CIS No. 08/2014 arising out of Dagarua P.S. case No. 15/2014, the appellants namely Md. Rehan (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1058 of 2016) and Md. Azaz @ Babo (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 482 of 2016) have been convicted for offence punishable under sections 376D, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 376D, 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. one lakh, one lakh and Rs. 10,000/- each respectively. The appellants have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and 30,000/- each respectively with further direction that all the sentences awarded to both the appellants have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of informant Md. Wasik recorded by S.I. Rakesh Prasad of Dagarua Police Station on 27.01.2014 at 09.45 a.m. at his house is that on 26.01.2014 at 06.00 p.m., when the informant did not find his daughter namely Sufiyana @ Sofa Pravin at his house then he and his family members started searching her in the nearby areas and also inquired about her from the relatives, but he has not been able to find her and as such, they returned home. In the morning of 27.01.2014 (wrongly written in F.I.R. as 27.01.2013), when the informant and family members again went in search of the victim, a fisherman namely Sahdeo Mahaldar came near the Sakrail Primary School and told informant’s mother that the dead body of a girl is lying in Purpuria ditch of Manen river. Upon reaching at the spot, the informant’s mother saw that the dead body of informant’s daughter Sufiyana Pravin @ Sofa was lying and blood was found in her pajama. Thereafter, the dead body of the informant’s daughter was brought to the house by the mother with the help of informant’s uncle and nephew. The informant also joined them on the way. It has further been stated that upon reaching home, mother of the informant saw that blood was coming from private part of the deceased girl in which a piece of lungi measuring 6 inch was tied. Thereafter, information was given to the police and the police reached there. The informant suspected that some unknown persons murdered her daughter after committing rape and threw the dead body near the Purpuria ditch. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Dagarua P.S. case No. 15/2014 dated 27.01.2014 was registered under Sections 376, 302, 201/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
4. After registration of F.I.R., investigation was conducted by the police and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against both the appellants under Sections 376, 302, 201/34 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the trial, in order to substantiate the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Md. Zakir, P.W.2 Noorjahan (grandmother of the victim), P.W.3 Md. Wasik, P.W. 4 Md. Younus, P.W. 5 Ansari Khatoon (mother of the victim), P.W. 6 Sheikh Manglu @ Akimuddin, P.W. 7 Ashok Sharma, P.W. 8 Chand Ali @ Chano, P.W. 9 Anil Sah @ Chunna P.W. 10 Dr. Vinay Mohan (doctor who conducted post mortem), P.W. 11Md. Rakib, P.W.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of circumstantial evidence, including the 'last seen theory', recovery of the body from exclusive possession, and the significance ....
Point of Law : Contradictory statements regarding extra judicial confession made by the accused/appellant, we are of the view that such type of extra judicial confession has no such value in the eye ....
Murder – “Last seen” doctrine has limited application, where time lag between time deceased was seen last with accused and time of murder is narrow – Court should not convict an accused only on the b....
(1) Delay in transmission of FIR to court, may not, per se, be fatal, without anything more – Where ocular evidence is found to be unreliable and unacceptable, long delay has to be taken note of by C....
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.