IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Subodh Kumar, S/o. Late Parmanand Singh @ Parmanand Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 134 of 2022
Decided On : 14-11-2022
Acquittal - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, 201, 120-B, 34 - The court discussed the prosecution's attempt to establish the guilt of the private respondents based on the deceased being last seen with them and the recovery of the deceased's motorcycle and sandals from the cowshed of respondent No. 3. The medical evidence cast doubt on the prosecution's timeline, leading to the court's finding of acquittal based on the benefit of doubt principle.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed a judgment and order acquitting respondents No. 2 and 3 of charges under Sections 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case involved the deceased being last seen with the private respondents and the recovery of the deceased's body, motorcycle, and sandals.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the private respondents, citing the prosecution's failure to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubts, particularly due to contradictions in the prosecution's timeline and doubts raised regarding the seized sandals.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the timeline of events, the recovery of the deceased's belongings, and the credibility of witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the benefit of doubt principle, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubts. The medical evidence played a crucial role in casting doubt on the prosecution's timeline, leading to the acquittal of the private respondents.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's acquittal of the private respondents.
JUDGMENT :
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.
The informant of Begusarai Muffasil Police Station case No. 414 of 2019 has preferred this appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure putting to challenge a judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 passed in Sessions trial No. 44 of 2020 (G.R. No. 2917 of 2019) by learned Sessions Judge-IX, Begusarai. By the said judgment and order, learned trial court has acquitted respondents No. 2 and 3 of the charge of commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. We have heard Mr. Aaruni Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The prosecution’s case as disclosed in the written report of the informant, addressed to the S.H.O. of the Police Station dated 11.08.2019 at 11:05 hours is that on 09.08.2019 at about 4:00 P.M., respondents No. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘private respondents’) had come at the door of the informant and called his brother Prakash Kumar(the deceased). All of them, thereafter, left together on a Pulsar Motorcycle. As he did not return till late in the night on the said day, the informant made a call on his mobile phone which was though ringing but without any response. When he enquired from the private respondents about the deceased, they declined to furnish any information. On 11.08.2019 at about 7:00 AM, he heard from the villagers that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the field of one Hanuman Singh, nearly 500 yards away from the residence of the private respondents. The informant immediately rushed with his mother and a neighbour, Bilo Singh to the place where the dead body was lying. They noticed sign of injuries on the person of the deceased. The neck was found cut from the back side. Several other injuries were there on the person of the deceased. The co-villagers, in large number, thereafter assembled. It was also alleged that the Pulsar motorcycle and the slippers of the deceased were found lying in the cowshed of the respondent No. 3.
4. The police upon completion of investigation submitted chargesheet on 27.10.2019 against the private respondents while keeping the supplementary investigation pending. Supplementary investigation was also closed with the submission of final form on 30.12.2019. Cognizance was taken of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the court below on 22.01.2020. On 02.03.2020 the charges under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC were framed against the private respondents.
5. At the trial, six prosecution’s witnesses were examined, namely, P.W. 1, mother of the informant, P.W.2, a neighbour of the informant, P.W. 3, a co-villager of the informant, P.W.4, the informant himself, P.W. 5, the Medical Officer and P.W., 6 the Investigating Officer.
6. P.W. 4 (the informant), in his deposition, apart from supporting the prosecution’s case as was disclosed by him in the first information report reiterated that the deceased had took out his Pulsar motorcycle and had gone with the private respondents and his dead body was subsequently found on 11.08.2019 at 7:00 AM. He further deposed that the Pulsar motorcycle and a pair of sandals were recovered from the cowshed of respondent No. 3. The private respondents were arrested by the police from their houses.
7. From the impugned judgment of the trial court, it transpires that the defence had set out a case that the story of the prosecution about the occurrence on 09.08.2019 was absolutely false, in fact, on 09.08.2019 at about 10:00 AM, the deceased had come in his Pulsar motorcycle at the door of respondent no. 3. The private respondents had some conversation with the deceased. He had parked his motorcycle in the cowshed of respondent no. 3 and had walked towards the main road. The accused persons presumed that he was going to board a public transport on the main road. They learnt in the mo
The principle of establishing guilt beyond all reasonable doubts and the application of the benefit of doubt principle in criminal cases.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, especially in cases where the timing of events and the recov....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittals are reviewed under strict guidelines favoring the presumption of innocence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an appellate court should not interfere with the trial court's finding of acquittal if it appears to be a reasonably possible view based on th....
The sufficiency of evidence to establish the prosecution's case beyond all reasonable doubts, and the prejudicial impact of the absence of T.I. Parade and non-examination of the Investigating Officer....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, which was not achieved in this case.
The need for concrete evidence to prove homicidal death and the importance of the Doctor's opinion in cases of circumstantial evidence.
The need for conclusive evidence and a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt, and the limited jurisdiction of the appellate court in interfering with findings of fact by the trial court.
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.