Back
2005 Supreme(Cal) 269
High Court Of Calcutta
Amit Talukdar, Sankar Prasad Mitra
JHARU MONDAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 209 Of 2003
Decided On : 04/21/2005
KAZI SAFIUDDIN AHMED, KHONDAKAR JALAL AHMED, MANAS DAS GUPTA, SUBIR GANGULY
In a circumstantial evidence case, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt by establishing a complete chain of circumstances that points unmistakably to the guilt of the accused. Any missing links in the chain of circumstances or any reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused will entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONVICTION U/S 302 AND 364 IPC - CHILD WITNESS TESTIMONY - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - MISSING LINKS IN CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO APPELLANTS
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted under Sections 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping and murdering Nandarani Mondal. The prosecution relied on the testimony of a child witness, P.W. 4, who claimed to have seen the appellants kidnapping Nandarani, and on the recovery of Nandarani's body from a jackfruit and mango garden two days later.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of P.W. 4 was unreliable as he had not raised an alarm or informed anyone about the kidnapping immediately after the incident. The court also noted that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and that the appellants had not been seen with Nandarani after the kidnapping. The court concluded that there were several missing links in the chain of circumstances and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of a child witness is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused in a circumstantial evidence case? 2. Whether the recovery of the deceased's body from a jackfruit and mango garden two days after the kidnapping is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused? 3. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of any eyewitnesses to the kidnapping are fatal to the prosecution case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The testimony of a child witness must be carefully scrutinized and corroborated by other evidence before it can be relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused. 2. The recovery of the deceased's body from a jackfruit and mango garden two days after the kidnapping, without any evidence linking the accused to the crime scene, is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. 3. The delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of any eyewitnesses to the kidnapping are factors that weaken the prosecution case and raise doubts about the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court, and directed that the appellants be released forthwith.
( 1 ) IN this Appeal the conviction of the Appellants in respect of the charges of Sections 30? and 364 of the Indian Penal Code forms the subject-matter of consideration, which has been passed by the learned Fast track, Second Court, Krishnanagar in Sessions Trial No. 2 (7)2002 on 28,3. 2003 thereby sentencing both the Appellants in respect of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. No separate sentence in respect of the charge of Section 364 of the Indian penal Code was however passed.
( 2 ) PURSUANT to a charge-sheet, submitted by P. W. 10 the Investigating officer the Appellants were directed to answer the following charges : firstly, "that in furtherance of common intention all of you, on or about the 20th day of March 2000 at 00 hours of night at Ramnagar P. S.-Tehatta, nadia, Kidnapped Nanda Rani Mondal in order that the said Nanda Rani mondal might be murdered and thereby committed and offence punishable under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. " secondly, "that in furtherance of common intention of all you, on or about the 20th day of March, 2000 at 00 hours P. S. Tehatta, Nadia, did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Nanda Rani Mondal and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian penal Code. "
( 3 ) HAVING pleaded not guilty the Appellants were put up on Trial which saw the Prosecution examining 10 witnesses in its support.
( 4 ) THE first phase of the Prosecution Case relates to the evidence of P. W. 4, child witness, who was sleeping by his Grandmother, deceased nandarani on the fateful night of 20. 3. 2000 when the Appellants came and kidnapped Nandarani and she having remained untraced until her dead body was found. That P. W. 4 the child witness used to sleep to his grandmother deceased Nandrani has been spoken by P. Ws. 1, 3 and 5. It relates to the charge in respect of Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 5 ) THE second phase of the Prosecution Case in relation to the charge of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code relates to the evidence of p. W. 1 the daughter-in-law of the deceased Nandarani who deposed that she was sleeping inside the room with her child, who was unwell; while Nandarani and P. W. 4 were sleeping on the varandah. She stated that she heard from p. W. 4 in the morning that the Appellants had kidnapped Nandarani. She deposed that her husband, Manick (not examined) and the Appellant No. 1 used to catch fish together and as the fishing net of the Appellant No. 1 was missing he blamed Manick and both the Appellants chased her husband. In the same night the Appellant No. 2 came to their house and asked for Manick and he threatened them with murder by way of setting fire in the room. She further stated that the dead body of deceased Nandarani was found two days thereafter in a jackfruit and mango garden. She narrated the incident to the police Station. P. W. 8 scribed her version (Ext. 3), which was treated as a formal F. I. R. (Ext. 4) by P. W. 9.
( 6 ) P. W. 3 another daughter-in-law (elder) of the deceased Nandarani and mother of P. W. 4 signed on the Inquest Report (Ext. 6 ). She also heard from P. W. 4 that the Appellants had kidnapped Nandarani and committed murder. She saw the dead body and deposed that she had heard that eight days before the incident there was a quarrel between Manick and the appellants over the missing fishing net. Nandarani was visually impaired and rw. 4 was staying in the house of P. W. 1 and he knew both the Appellants as they were from the same village. Next morning P. W. 4 came to her house and told about the incident of kidnap of Nandarani by the Appellants.
( 7 ) THIS is another phase of the Prosecution Case supplemented by the evidence of P. W. 2 a co-villager, who turned hostile, found the dead body in the garden while he was going to the fie
