2025 Supreme(Pat) 109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI and ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos.708 with 808 and 855 of 2017
(30.1.2025)
Shobha Devi (in 708)
Bal Kunwar Mahto (in 808)
Raja Kumar @ Raja (in 855) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
(in all)

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 302 and 364A [Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 61(2), 103(1) and 140(2) – Kidnapping for ransom – Circumstantial evidence – Informant contacted the mobile of his son, however, some other person picked up the phone and replied that he had kidnapped his son and if they want to get his son back safe, he should keep ready Rs. 3 lakhs – From the entire evidence led by the prosecution, it is revealed that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence either of kidnapping or killing – Appellant had not been arrested with any amount of ransom nor he was arrested while making any kind of demand nor with the alleged mobile from which the demand was being made – There are different versions with regard to the place from which the appellant was apprehended – Prosecution has failed to establish his connection with other co-accused persons by leading cogent evidence – Further, failed to produce post-mortem report of the deceased and the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination, is also not examined – Knife was discovered from an agricultural field which is open and accessible to all and was not sent to F.S.L. for necessary analysis – There is no evidence on record to suggest that appellant has kidnapped the victim and made telephone call to the informant or any other prosecution witness and demanded ransom amount – Whenever the case is based on circumstantial evidence, certain features are required to be complied with i.e. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn 'must be' or should be and not merely 'may be' fully established – The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused i.e. to say they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty – Further, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused – Prosecution has failed to prove that the victim has been kidnapped by the present appellants – Prosecution has also failed to prove that the appellants have killed the victim – The link to connect the appellants with the incident in question is missing and the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances from which it can be established that the present appellants must have committed the alleged offences – Trial court committed an error – Impugned common judgment of conviction and order of sentence quashed and set aside – Appeals allowed. (Paras 31, 33, 34, 38 & 42)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 [Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 23(2) – Discovery of Knife – Police officer under section 27 is a memorandum of confession of the accused recorded by the investigating officer during interrogation which has been taken down in writing – The confessional part of such statement is inadmissible and only the part which distinctly leads to discovery of fact is admissible in evidence – Therefore, when the investigating officer steps into the witness box for proving such disclosure statement, he would be required to narrate what the accused stated to him thereby the investigating officer essentially testifies about the conversation held between himself and the accused which has been taken down into writing leading to the discovery of incriminating fact – Disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused – Burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material objects and it's use in the commission of the offence – Merely, because knife has been discovered at his instance, it cannot be presumed that the said knife is used for killing the victim. (Paras 40, 40.1 and 41)