Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Shailendra Singh, JJ.
Sunita Devi, Wife of Sri Narayan Chaudhur @ Sri Narayan Singh and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1055 of 2016, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1100 of 2016, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1110 of 2016
Decided On : 20-02-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302/149 – Accused persons killing the deceased by pressing her neck – The prosecution witnesses have not given a consistent account of manner of occurrence – They are related and interested witnesses as they have chequered history of litigations against each other – Withholding the independent witnesses whom the I.O. has investigated in course of investigation of the case is fatal to the prosecution – It would not be safe to believe the prosecution witnesses as eye witnesses to the occurrence – The inconsistencies in the eye witnesses account of the occurrence and contradictions in their statements are taking the credibility of these witnesses – The doctor have found on internal examination a ligature mark of ½ cm diameter below the thyroid cartilage circular around the neck-cartilage of larynx and tracheal rings were fractured which are clear symptoms of death by ligature strangulation and not by throttling – In order to appreciate the entire circumstances of the case of death of the deceased, in the present set of facts, the opinion of the doctor gains much importance – The PM report does not indicate any sign of strangulation by throttling – In the Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. examination, attention of the accused persons were not drawn towards the evidences brought by the prosecution against them – Prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts – Impugned judgment and order set aside – Appellants acquitted – Appeals allowed. (Paras 46, 49, 50 to 53)
AIR 2024 SC 397; (2021) 13 SCC 716; (2013) 10 SCC 192; (2010) 10 SCC 259; (2003) 12 SCC 155; (1999) 8 SCC 649 – Referred.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and conviction details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of prosecution's case and witness examination. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. evidence presented by the prosecution. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments regarding inconsistencies in witness testimonies. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. further evidential critiques by the defense. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. testimonies from family witnesses. (Para 13 , 14 , 25) |
| 7. forensic analysis of the victim's injuries. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. inconsistencies in the prosecution's claims. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. legal considerations based on witness scrutiny. (Para 40 , 41 , 45) |
| 10. final verdict and appeals judgment. (Para 52 , 53) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
These three criminal appeals arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th September, 2016 and 29th September, 2016 respectively (hereinafter called “impugned judgment and order”) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge XI, East Champaran at Motihari (hereinafter referred to as the “learned trial court”) in Sessions Trial No. 374 of 1998 / Supplementary Registration No. 183 of 2015 arising out of Chakia P.S. Case No. 19 of 1998, G.R. No. 259 of 1998 (State through Jagdish Singh vs. Dinesh Chaudhur and Others) have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court has been pleased to hold the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they will have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Prosecution Story
3. As per the prosecution story, fardbeyan of the informant Jagdish Singh (PW-3) was recorded on 11.02.1998 in Referral Hospital, Chakiya at 11/15 hours by S.I. Ram Naresh Prasad Singh (PW-5) in front of the dead body of his daughter Sudha Kumari @ Tuni (deceased). The informant stated that today in the morning at about 7 hours he was at his Baithka and his wife and daughter were sleeping in the room inside the house and at that time, his gotiyas (1) Gagandev Chaudhur, (2) Anandev Chaudhur, (3) Sunerdev Chaudhur, (4) Ramdev Choudhur, (5) Laliteshwar Kumar Singh @ Bhola Singh, (6) Shubh Narayan Choudhur, (7) Manoj Kumar, (8) Krishna Kant Singh @ Chutun, (9) Pradeep Chaudhur, (10) Dinesh Chaudhur, (11) Shobha Devi, (12) Manju Kumari, (13) Sunita Devi, (14) Shanti Devi and (15) Kapildev Narayan Singh, all of village Gangati, P.S.- Chakiya, District- Motihari entered into his house by abusing having ‘lathi- danda’ and tengari and started searching his daughter Sudha Kumari. On hearing their sound, the informant also came in the angan and saw that above named Gagandev Chaudhur and Laliteshwar Kumar Singh slammed down his daughter after dragging her from bed and with these two persons other above named togetherly started beating his daughter on which his daughter started crying loudly, when the informant and his wife tried to save her then Anandev Chaudhur assaulted the informant also and caused head injury by the butt of tengari. In the meantime, Shubh Narayan Chaudhur threw the double barrel gun no. 7405123 kept in his house after damaging it’s kunda and butt. Kapildev Singh told all the persons to kill the girl as she is always leading quarrel. On his instigation, above named all accused persons caught hold of his daughter and killed her by pressing her neck. On shouting of informant, his villager Braj Kishor Prasad, Binod Kumar Pandey and others came running then above persons fled away from his house. The informant stated the reason behind the occurrence that yesterday in the evening of 10.02.1998, there was a quarrel of Sudha Kumari with the daughter of Gagandev Chaudhur. The informant and his wife brought the daughter to Chakiya Government Hospital through tyre vehicle where doctor declared her to be dead. The in
In criminal cases, consistent and credible evidence is essential; discrepancies and reliance on related witnesses can undermine the prosecution's case and result in acquittal.
The judgment establishes that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the absence of a direct witness does not preclude a conviction if the circumstantial evidence is compelling and the accused fails to....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The judgment underscores the necessity of reliable witness testimony and corroborative evidence for securing a conviction in criminal cases.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence must negate the innocence of the accused, which was not established in this case.
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
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
