IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
A.M. BADAR, CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, JJ.
Md. Guddu Sah @ Guddu Sah @ Guddu Shah S/o Khalil Shah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 736 of 2022
Decided On : 19-05-2023
IPC - Criminal Law - Section 302, Section 34 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the arguments presented by the prosecution and the defense. The court analyzed the evidence, witness testimonies, and legal principles such as burden of proof, circumstantial evidence, and the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC for the murder of his wife. The prosecution's case was based on the written report of the informant, witness testimonies, and exhibits including the postmortem report and FSL report. The appellant's defense argued against the sufficiency of evidence and the application of legal presumptions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The witness testimonies, including that of the informant and other witnesses, did not provide substantial evidence to support the conviction. The court also emphasized the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the principles of burden of proof and circumstantial evidence.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, witness testimonies, and the application of legal presumptions in a criminal trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It also highlighted the principle that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive in nature to support a conviction. The court's decision was influenced by the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the lack of substantial evidence to attribute culpability to the appellant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction, and acquitted the appellant of the charges. The appellant was directed to be released from custody, and any fine paid was ordered to be returned to the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.
1. The present appeal is preferred challenging the judgment dated 22.08.2022 and order of sentence dated 26.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2020 arising out of Belaganj P.S. Case No. 292 of 2019 convicting the appellant under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), where appellant/convict was sentenced for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo further imprisonment of one year.
2. The factual matrix of this case, as it springs from the written report of informant (PW-1), Safina Khatoon that marriage of her daughter Soni Khatoon (deceased) was solemnized with Guddu Shah (appellant/convict), S/o Khalil Sah of village-Laxmipur, P.S. Belaganj, District-Gaya before nine years as of now as per Muslim Customary Rites and Rituals. It is alleged thereof that appellant/convict, who is the husband of deceased along with other family members, i.e. father-in-law, namely, Khalil Shah, mother-in-law, namely, Maimun Khatoon, brother-in-law, namely, Saddam Shah and sister-in-law, namely, Juhi Khatoon collectively tortured her daughter and also alleged for physical assault. They also threatened her to kill. She came to know on 16.08.2019 at about 2:00 p.m. through villagers that her daughter was killed by her in-laws. On said information, she arrived at village-Laxmipur, where she found her daughter dead as a result of collective assault caused by above-named accused persons.
3. On the basis of aforesaid written information of PW-1, Belaganj P.S. Case No. 292 of 2019 was instituted on 16.08.2019 under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC against appellant/convict along with other co-accused persons, where police after investigation submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No. 270 of 2019 dated 12.11.2019 under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC.
4. The learned Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate after taking note of materials collected during course of investigation, took cognizance under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC against the appellant/convict and committed the case to the court of sessions for trial.
5. Upon commitment, the learned trial Court taking note of the materials available on record, framed charge against the appellant/convict along with other co-accused persons facing trial, (who are not appellant before this Court) under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC, which was duly explained to them where appellant/convict plead “not guilty” and claimed for trial.
6. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found the appellant/convict guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC, where he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo further imprisonment of one year.
7. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant/convict preferred present appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
8. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether six witnesses. They are PW-1, namely, Safina Khatoon, who is the informant of this case, PW-2, namely, Izrael Shah, who is the maternal uncle of deceased Soni Khatoon, PW-3, namely, Md. Shagir Shah, PW-4 is Md. Danish, PW-5 is Dr. Purnendu Shekhar and PW-6 is Arun Kumar Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of this case.
9. The prosecution has also relied upon following exhibits to substantiate its case:
| (1) | Exhibit No. 1 | Postmortem report of the deceased |
| (2) | Exhibit No. 2 | Written information of the informant (PW-1) |
| (3) | Exhibit No. 3 | Inquest report |
| (4) | Exhibit No. 4 | Charge-Sheet |
| (5) | Exhibit No. 5 | FSL report |
10. By taking note of the evidences available on record, the statement of the appellant/convict was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by stating him about all the incriminating circumstances where he stated about false
C. Chenga Reddy and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of legal presumption....
The legal principle established is that the entire deposition of an eyewitness should not be discarded if some portion is found to be false, and the legal requirements for establishing guilt based on....
Conviction under Section 302 RPC unsustainable on uncorroborated child witness testimony with material contradictions, hostile key witnesses, doubtful weapon recovery, and unproved motive, entitling ....
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act shifts to the accused if the prosecution establishes the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence ....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a conviction cannot be based solely on the recovery of a murder weapon without corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code requires credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt, including corroborative evidence when relying on confessions or weapon recovery.
The judgment reinforces the principle that in cases of domestic homicide, the accused has a duty to explain the circumstances of the death when it occurs in their presence, particularly when the pros....
The importance of proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
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.