IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and NANI TAGIA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 842 of 2017
(16.5.2025)
Dharmendra Das & Anr. ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondents
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 26 (BSA, 2023 – Section 23(2) – Extra-judicial Confession by the accused – It is a well settled law that as far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, generally it is a very weak piece of evidence, its evidentiary value depends upon trustworthiness of the witness before whom confession is made and in absence of chain of circumstances, the Court should be reluctant to rely on it for the purposes of recording the conviction and the Courts should generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before putting any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession – In the present case, the circumstances beyond doubt show that, the extra-judicial confession of informant-appellant No. 2 is shrouded by suspicious circumstances and is neither supported by a chain of cogent circumstances nor is corroborated by the evidence on record – In such view of the matter, the fardbeyan of the informant-appellant No. 2 by way of extra-judicial confession cannot be treated as an admissible piece of evidence for the purposes of conviction. (Paras 36 & 40)
Criminal Trial – Conviction – Circumstantial evidence – It is a settled law that circumstantial evidence is required to be drawn from the established facts as the circumstances lead to particular inferences and the Court has to draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete and when the circumstances are collectively considered, whether the same only lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone are the perpetrators of the crime in question – All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused – As far as the present case is concerned, the prosecution has failed to bring any circumstancial evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt, inasmuch as the chain of links connecting the appellants with the crime remains inconclusive. (Para 41)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [BNS, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Murder – Improper investigation – Investigation made in the present case by the Police and the I.O. have been perfunctory and involves supression – Neither the mosquito net nor the blood soaked bed over which the deceased was lying nor the bed present at the P.O. nor the knife/dagger was seized by the I.O. from the place of occurrence – Knife/dagger was sent for the FSL examination apart from the fact that no attempt, whatsoever was made by the I.O. to get fingerprints, present on the knife/dagger, compared with that of the appellant No. 1. (Para 42)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [BNS, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Murder – Delay in dispatch of the FIR – Fardbeyan recorded on morning of 14.10.2012, formal FIR registered on 14.10.2002 but it was received by the learned CJM on 18.10.2012 – Much stress laid by the prosecution on CDR and CAF but the same have not been proved in terms of Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act inasmuch as neither any certificate u/s 65B(4) nor the original document of CDR and CAF produced – The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 42, 45 & 46)
Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2017 and 23.05.2017 respectively, passed by the learned Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-1st, Gaya (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Trial Judge’) in Sessions Trial No.601 of 2013 (S.J.)/31 of 2017 (arising out of Paraiya P.S. case No.89 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No.4159 of 2012), whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant No.1 under Section 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.P.C.’) and the appellant No.2 under Section 120(B) of the I.P.C. By the said order dated 23.05.2017, the learned Trial Judge has sentenced the appellant No.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default thereof, he has been directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The learned Trial Judge has further sentenced both the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 120(B) of I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default thereof, they have been directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The learned Trial Judge has also directed that 50% of the fine amount will be given to the children of the deceased under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The short facts of the case are that on 14.10.2012 at 07:15 a.m., the fardbeyan of the informant, namely Bindu Devi, wife of the deceased was recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police, namely Shri Hari Ojha, S.H.O. Paraiya Police Station. In the fardbeyan, the wife of the deceased, namely, Bindu Devi has stated that on the previous night, she was sleeping with her husband on the same bed in the room adjacent to courtyard and all the four children were sleeping in the adjacent room. At about 11:00 p.m. in the night of 13.10.2012, Dharmendra Das (appellant No.1) had called her on her mobile from mobile number 7352209692, who stays at Budh Paraiya, P.S. Paraiya, District Gaya and works as a doctor. The said Dharmendra Das upon having called the wife of the deceased had told her that he has arrived near the river, whereafter the wife of the deceased on the pretext of going to the urinal had gone outside and opened the main door of the house, whereupon Dharmendra Das had entered inside the house and had taken the knife kept in the house from two days back and at that time the deceased (husband of the informant Bindu Devi) was sleeping, whereafter the wife of the deceased had gone to the adjacent room where the children were sleeping. After 10 minutes, a noise ‘oof’ (screaming) was heard and after 15 minutes, Dharmendra Das had come out of the room and called her, whereupon she had come out from the room in which the children were sleeping and upon looking at the bed on which her husband was lying, Bindu Devi found that the neck of her husband had been cut and one big knife had been inserted in the stomach of her husband. Thereafter, Bindu Devi became perplexed but Dharmendra Das told her not to worry since her husband Arjun Ram used to harass her and now the problem has been solved. The said Dharmendra Das had then told Bindu Devi not to disclose about the incident to anyone. Bindu Devi has next stated that thereafter, she started crying but in the meantime Dharmendra Das had taken her mobile along with him and fled away. Thereafter, the children had woken up but her elder daughter Deepa Kumari (aged about 12 years) was sleeping. Bindu Devi is stated to have then gone to the house of her brother-in-law, namely, Mohan Das (PW-2) and had told him, his wife, his daughter-in-law and his daughter about the incident as also had requested them to go to the Police Station but they told her that lot of force was presen
Munshi Prasad vs. State of Bihar
Anant Gopal Sheorey vs. State of Bombay
State of Bihar vs. Jhari Sharma
Sahadevan vs. State of Tamil Nadu
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.