Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR and ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.229 of 2023
(19.1.2024)
Munna Ansari ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondents
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 4 and 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(D) and 302 – Rape and murder of minor girl – Life sentence – Post-mortem report indicates incident of sexual assault on victim before she died of asphyxia, as a result of throttling though which is quite in consonance with initial version of prosecution story – FSL report does not show any connectivity of appellant with victim – PWs are not eye witness of occurrence and they have not supported case of prosecution and their evidence is of no relevance to prove prosecution case and they have been declared hostile by prosecution – Statement of informant that he has himself seen appellant in running condition is quite inconsistent with story of prosecution – His statement during examination-in-chief has been made in order to suit the prosecution evidence – He has not seen the occurrence – His statement regarding initiation of search of victim was not in consonance with initial version of prosecution story – Prudently and pragmatically, it is difficult to identify a person in dead silence of night only on the basis of running condition of appellant – Investigation suffers from inherent defects – Case is not based on direct evidence – Evidence of witnesses are full of infirmities and imperfection which strike at root of prosecution story – Present case is neither related with direct evidence nor that of circumstantial evidence and prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted of charges levelled against him – Appeal allowed. (Paras 14 to 22, 26 to 28)
Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Judge should step into shoes of a prudent man – A common man would have many suppositions for cause of occurrence in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence – There are several circumstances which are placed before Court but it is only based on supposition – Then Court evaluate each supposition when Court have ruled out suppositions, it is only such suppositions which has highest probability, should be relied upon and taken as a proved – That is how fundamental principle in respect of circumstantial evidence evolves. (Para 25)
Alok Kumar Pandey, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2020 and order of sentence dated 24.02.2020 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge- cum- Special Judge, (SC/ST/POCSO), Bettiah, West Champaran in Mainatand P.S. Case No. 03 of 2019, CIS No. 02 of 2019 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376(D), 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 4, 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act.') and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 302 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to suffer further five years imprisonment; 20 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 376(D) of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to suffer further four years imprisonment; and life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to suffer further five years imprisonment. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. The names of the victim and PWs-1 and 5 (who are victim's mother and father) have been concealed in the judgment to protect their prestige and dignity.
3. According to written report of informant (PW-5), the occurrence is of 01.01.2019 at about 8:00 PM for which information was given to the S.H.O. Mainatand police station on 02.01.2019 at 9 hours and immediately whereafter FIR was registered.
4. The prosecution case as stated by the informant (PW- 5), in brief, is that on the fateful day i.e. 01.01.2019 at about 8 PM, informant's daughter aged about 12 years went outside the house in the east direction to answer her nature's call after taking meal. At the relevant time, informant and his family members were warming their hands by fire heat at the gate. In the meantime, Anirudh Sah (PW-2) came to the house from Mainatand and it was stated by him that two persons made to escape towards east field after having seen him. One person was identified as Munna Ansari (appellant) whereas other person was not identified. After having heard the said fact, informant (PW-5) made query to his wife (PW-1) regarding returning of her daughter from nature's call but when victim was not found at the house, search was made by the informant (PW-5) and his family members towards the east field and other places. At last, her dead body was found towards the west of haystack of Ramchandra Patel. It was found that after having committed rape upon the victim, her neck was pressed after inflicting injury on her mouth.
5. On the basis of written report of informant (PW-5), Mainatand P.S. Case No. 03 of 2019 dated 02.01.2019 was registered under Sections 376(d), 302 of the IPC and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act. Routine investigation followed. The statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on completion of the investigation, the appellant and other were charge-sheeted under the aforesaid sections. The learned Trial court was pleased to frame charges under Sections 302, 376(D) of the IPC and Sections 4, 6 of the POCSO Act. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant and other to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to bring home guilt of the accused persons, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. PW-1 (mother of the victim/deceased), PW-2 Anirudh Sah, PW-3 Chandeshwar Sah, PW-4 Ankur Sah, PW-5 (informant cum father of the victim/deceased), PW-6 Ramvinod Singh(I.O.) and PW-7 Dr. K.M.P. Parve.
Prosecution has relied upon following documentary evidence on record: –
Ext. 1- Thumb impression of informant on written report.
Ext. 2- Thumb impression of informant on seizure list.
Ext. 3- Endorsement on written statement.
Ext. 3/a- Signature of I.O. on endorsement.
Ext. 4- Signature of I.O. on FIR.
Ext. 5- Inquest
Circumstantial evidence must establish a conclusive chain consistent with the accused's guilt; suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal convictions.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to justify a conviction.
The prosecution's case can be established through circumstantial evidence and witness demeanor despite inconsistencies in testimonies regarding identification, affirming the conviction under relevant....
Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.
The judgment establishes the importance of corroborative evidence, the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act, and the standard of proof required for the accused to prove innocence in cases of sexu....
The prosecution's burden was not met due to substantial inconsistencies in witness testimonies; thus, a conviction was unjustified.
Sentence must be based on comparative analysis of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
If the deceased had died on the previous day then it cannot be believed that the informant i.e. the PW-5 and the other members of the family including the PW-1 were not aware of the actual incident.
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
