Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUDHIR SINGH, CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Girja Chaudhary, S/o. Late Jago Chaudhary @ Late Jawar Chaudhary & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 248 of 2018 With Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 52 of 2018
Decided On : 01-09-2023
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code - [302/34 of I.P.C.] - The court discussed the absence of evidence of theft and the appellants' failure to provide a credible defense, leading to the affirmation of the judgment of conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from a judgment of conviction and sentence for the appellants under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case involved the murder of the daughter-in-law of the appellants, with allegations of torture and threats prior to the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of events, ruling out the reasonable likelihood of the appellants' innocence. The appellants failed to offer any credible defense, leading to the affirmation of the judgment of conviction.
Issues: (I) Whether the defense of theft and murder by a thief can be considered? (II) Whether the conduct of the appellants in not informing the police about the death of their daughter-in-law is justified? (III) Whether the appellants have discharged their burden regarding the death of their daughter-in-law in light of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of evidence of theft and the appellants' failure to provide a credible defense led to the affirmation of the judgment of conviction. The burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act was heavy upon the appellants to explain the death of the deceased, and their failure to do so became an additional link in the chain of events.
Final Decision: Both the criminal appeals were dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were affirmed. The bail bonds of appellant Dhano Devi were cancelled, and she was directed to serve the remaining sentence in jail custody.
JUDGMENT :
Sudhir Singh, J.
The criminal appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2017, and the order of sentence dated 06.12.2017, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Both the criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2017 and the order of sentence dated 06.12.2017 passed by Sri Sachchida Nand Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge 1st, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.60 of 2016 (S.J.)/ 34 of 2016 arising out of Wazirganj P.S. case No.357 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appellants of both criminal appeals have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (referred to ‘I.P.C.’) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellants have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 120(B) of I.P.C. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case, as per the written report of informant Kedar Chaudhary (PW1) recorded by S.I. Santosh Kumar, Wazirganj P.S. on 25.08.2015 at about 5:45 a.m. at Pranpur village near dead body of deceased in the house of accused Girja Chaudhary, in which the informant stated that he performed marriage of his youngest daughter, namely, Munni Devi with Satendra Chaudhary son of Girja Chaudhary of village Pranpur, P.S. Wazirganj, District Gaya about 20 years ago. After marriage, his daughter Munni Devi was residing with her husband in matrimonial house and from wedlock his daughter blessed with a son, aged about 10 years. His daughter has a Nanad, namely, Rubi Devi, wife of late Vinod Chaudhary, village Dadha, P.S. Fatehpur, District Gaya. Father-in-law of his daughter wanted to give landed property and house to his daughter Rubi Devi. So daughter of informant always protested this transaction. So Girja Chaudhary, Rubi Devi and her in-laws used to torture and beat the daughter of informant and they threatened to kill her and after assaulting ousted her from the matrimonial house. His daughter Munni Devi complained this matter to him. It is further alleged that on 24.08.2015, his son-in-law Satendra Chaudhary and his Nati, namely, Nigam Kumar came at his village for taking scholarship and his daughter Munni Devi was residing in her matrimonial house at village Pranpur alone. On 24/25.08.2015 in the night at about 12/01 O’ clock, father-in-law of his daughter, namely, Girja Chaudhary gave message by mobile phone that theft took place in his house and his daughter was murdered by cutting neck. After receiving information, he alongwith 20-25 people reached village Pranpur in early morning, then he saw that neck of his daughter was cut and she was lying on a cot in dead condition at her matrimonial house. The informant claims that his daughter was murdered by her father-in-law Girja Chaudhary, mother-in-law Dhano Devi, both resident of village Pranpur, P.S. Wazirganj, District Gaya, her Nanad Rubi Devi and Bhaisur of Rubi Devi, namely, Umesh Chaudhary, both resident of village Dadha, P.S. Fatehpur, District Gaya alongwith other 3-4 unknown miscreants with conspiracy to grab the land and share in the matrimonial house of Munni Devi and they are falsely blaming that theft took place in the house while all things of the house are in order and nothing was stolen. So the informant has strong belief that his daughter Munni Devi was murdered by the above named accused persons by cutting throat with Pasuli.
4. On the basis of aforesaid written report of informant, Wazirganj P.S. case No.357 of 2015 was registered. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet and thereafter cognizance was taken by the Jurisdictional Magistrate and thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions. C
Burden of proof – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then....
The prosecution's successful establishment of the chain of events and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellants to prove otherwise.
Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside - A grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of guilt - Benefit of doubt to accused appellants.
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances consistent only with the accused's guilt, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Point of law : Fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must b....
Circumstantial evidence must establish a clear chain of events linking the accused to the crime; failure to prove motive or support claims undermines conviction.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act places the burden on the accused to provide a plausible explanation for facts within their special knowledge, and the failure to do so can lead to adverse infer....
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act places a duty on the accused to offer a plausible explanation for the circumstances of the crime, especially in cases of circumstantial evide....
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
