Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, JJ.
Parwati Devi @ Paro Devi W/o Rameshwar Mahto – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 681, 688, 690 of 2018
Decided On : 11-10-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER AND CONSPIRACY - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2); Indian Penal Code - Sections 302/34, 120B; Arms Act - Section 27; SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act - Section 3(2)(v) - The court discussed the application of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the lack of eyewitnesses and the reliance on mobile call data, which was deemed insufficient without corroborating evidence. The interpretations of the relevant sections underscored the importance of proving conspiracy and direct involvement in the crime, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Swati Kumari, who was shot dead by unknown assailants. The informant, her father, alleged that the accused conspired with Prince Kumar Mahto, who was in jail for a previous crime against Swati. The case relied on circumstantial evidence, including mobile phone records and witness testimonies, but lacked direct evidence linking the appellants to the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence without any eyewitnesses. It noted inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the failure to establish a clear connection between the appellants and the crime. The court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused. The absence of direct evidence and the reliance on uncorroborated witness statements led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.
Final Decision: The court quashed the conviction and acquitted the appellants, stating that the prosecution had not proven the case against them beyond reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. The present appeals have been filed by the concerned appellants-convicts under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Code’) against impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 09.04.2018 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai in connection with Naokothi P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the present appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 120B of the I.P.C., under Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:
3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan given by Harilal Paswan, formal F.I.R. came to be registered as Naokothi P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 302/34, 120B of the I.P.C., under Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The Investigating Officer carried out the investigation, and during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the witnesses, collected the documentary evidence and thereafter, filed the charge-sheet against the appellants and two other accused. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the concerned Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
3.1 Before the Sessions Court, the case was registered as Naokothi P.S. Case No. 12 of 2016. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined six witnesses and also produced the documentary evidence. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code came to be recorded and after conclusion of the evidence, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order by which the Trial Court convicted the present appellants, as observed hereinabove, whereas two other accused namely, Chandrashekhar Paswan @ Karnal Paswan and Shatruhan Paswan have been acquitted by the Trial Court. Against the said order of conviction, the three convicts have filed three separate appeals, as observed hereinabove.
4. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur assisted by Mr. Rajkumar Rajesh, Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Mrs. Kiran Kumari and Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh for the appellants, Mr. Jai Prakash Singh for the informant and Smt. Usha Kumari No. 1 and Mr. Sadan
In criminal cases, particularly those based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that conclusively links the accused to the crime, fail....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on related witnesses without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on witness testimony requires corroboration, especially when witnesses are near relatives.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; unreliable eyewitness testimony, especially from near relatives, cannot substantiate a conviction.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The main legal point established is that the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the lack of concrete evidence can lead to the setting aside of a conviction.
The conviction upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite the absence of independent witnesses, affirming the trial court's judgment.
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
