Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, JJ.
Ram Nath Sahni S/o Kishori Sahni – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.727 of 2023
Decided on : 01-03-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER AND SEXUAL ASSAULT - IPC SECTION 302, POCSO ACT SECTION 6, IPC SECTIONS 376(A), 376(D) - The court discussed the provisions of IPC Section 302 concerning murder and POCSO Act Section 6 regarding sexual assault on minors. It emphasized the necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court interpreted the 'last seen together' theory and the importance of motive in circumstantial cases, ultimately concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder and sexual assault of Soni Kumari, a minor, whose body was found in the house of a handicapped person. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies that suggested the appellant was seen following the victim. However, the defense argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The court emphasized that the circumstantial evidence presented did not form a complete chain to establish the appellant's guilt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the appellant's guilt for murder and sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that are consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt. The absence of direct evidence and the failure to prove the age of the victim were critical in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and the appellant was directed to be released from custody.
JUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
The present appeal has been filed under Section-374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 07.06.2023 and order of sentence dated 14.06.2023 passed by learned learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-Cum-Special Judge, POCSO, Madhubani, in connection with G.R. POCSO Case No. 43 of 2020 (arising out of Kaluahi P.S. Case No. 116 of 2020) by which the appellant/convict has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20, 000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, further three month Simple Imprisonment for the offence u/S-302 of the I.P.C. Further the convict has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of the convict and fine of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, further three month Simple Imprisonment for the offence u/S-6 of the POCSO Act (read with Section 376(A) and 376(D) of the I.P.C. as per provision of Section-42 of POCSO Act). Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary assisted by Mr. Bhawesh Kumar Sah and Priyesh Kumar, learned Advocates for the appellant, Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State and Mr. Bimal Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the informant.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:
4. After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined 9 prosecution witnesses and defence has also examined two defence witnesses.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that the present is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the occurrence in question. It is submitted that the prosecution has examined only interested witnesses and no independent witness has been examined. It is thereafter contended that there are major contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution-witnesses and, though the prosecution has proved the death of the deceased as homicidal death, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant herein has committed the alleged offences. It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances from which it can b
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....
Point of Law : Contradictory statements regarding extra judicial confession made by the accused/appellant, we are of the view that such type of extra judicial confession has no such value in the eye ....
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
Circumstantial evidence, including motive and last seen theory, can establish guilt in murder cases when direct evidence is unavailable.
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
