IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT ON BOARD :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22-3-2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, in ST No.7/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 342, 302/34 and 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced her to undergo R.I. for one year, Life Imprisonment and R.I. for five years respectively with usual default stipulations.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30-10-2002 the complainant namely; Bandhu Ram (PW-1), who is the father of Dinesh Kumar (since deceased) made a report at Police Station Pathalgaon, alleging that on 29-10-2002 between 10 to 11 pm the accused persons namely; Sukhsay (since absconding), Jalha @ Amarsingh and Geeta Bai in connivance with each other killed his son in their house and thereafter threw the dead body into the well. On the basis of that, the merg (Ex.P/2) and FIR (Ex.P/1) were registered. The map of the place of incident was also prepared. The dead body was subjected to postmortem and as per the postmortem report (Ex.P/21) the cause of death was homicidal in nature. On 30-10-2002 itself from the house of Sukhsay & Geeta Bai, bloodstained soil, plain soil and stones were recovered vide Ex.P/10. Thereafter, one accused Jalha @ Amarsingh was arrested and on his memorandum weapon used in the offence was seized. Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed. In the meanwhile, Sukhsay and his wife Geeta Bai (appellant herein) absconded.

3. Thus, earlier the trial was conducted only against Jalha @ Amarsingh bearing ST No.17/2004 wherein after conclusion of trial the said accused was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur, by judgment dated 12-10-2004.

4. Since Sukhsay and his wife Geeta Bai were absconding permanent warrant was issued. Pursuant to the said warrant, on 10-8-2020 the appellant Geeta Bai was arrested and was produced before the competent Court. Thereafter, fresh trial bearing ST No.7/2020 commenced before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur. On completion of trial, the appellant Geeta Bai has been convicted and sentenced as stated supra. Thus, this appeal.

5. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that on a similar set of facts and evidence one of the accused namely; Jalha @ Amarsingh was acquitted by the Sessions Judge in earlier trial by judgment dated 12-10-2004 rendered in ST No.17/2004. Subsequently, though further examination of PW-2 Jugan Sai and PW-9 J.P. Singh, Investigating Officer, was conducted, but no new facts came to fore. Despite the said fact, on the similar like situation and on the earlier set of evidence, the present appellant has been convicted. He would submit that the doctrine of parity and discrimination would apply, which has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v State of Gujarat, (2023) 9 SCC 164. Under the circumstances, the appellant cannot be convicted.

(ii) Learned counsel would submit that PW-1 Bandhu Ram, father of the deceased, is a hearsay witness about disclosure of fact that his son stayed in the house of Geeta Bai. He had made contradictory statement and his entire behaviour would show that it was unnuatural. He refers to certain paragraphs of evidence of PW-1 Bandhu Ram to submit that only on presumption on the subsequent date the statement was made against the present appellant and others. He would submit that the prosecution claims that the place of commission of crime is the house of the appellant, but there is no clinching evidence on record, as the dead body was found in a well at common place which is not in dispute. Learned counsel would submit that the statement of PW-1 Bandhu Ram would show that there is no animosity in between the deceased and the accused persons.

(iii) Referring to the statement of PW-2 Jugan Sai, learned counsel would submit that there exists certain material omissi