Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Jhk) 313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Rajesh Das - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Opposite Parties
Cr. Revision No. 656 of 2004
Decided On : 22-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nilendu Kumar.
For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.P.P.
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Mr. S.K. Deo.

The importance of reliable and consistent evidence in proving criminal charges.

Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Revision - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366A, 368, 120B - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT]
Fact of the Case:

The prosecution alleged that the accused kidnapped a minor girl. The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of reliable evidence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence of the sole eyewitness/victim was not trustworthy and rejected it. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to produce reliable and convincing evidence to prove the charges against the accused.
Issues: Reliability of prosecution witnesses, interpretation of contradictory statements by the victim, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of reliable evidence and the need for consistency in witness statements. It applied legal principles from previous judgments to assess the credibility of the evidence.
Final Decision: The court upheld the acquittal of the accused, finding no error in the trial court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 19th June, 2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Deoghar, whereby in Sessions Case No. 196 of 1998, opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted from the charges levelled against them under Sections 363, 366A, 368 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The instant application has a chequered history. Initially the petitioner preferred instant application against the judgment of acquittal on 05.08.2004 before this Court. Subsequently, by order dated 19.02.2007 this Court remitted the case to the trial court by setting aside the impugned order of acquittal.

Relevant portion of the order passed by this Court dated 19.02.2007 is quoted herein below:

“ …Accordingly, without giving any specific finding on the evidence on record, the matter is being remitted to the Trial Court by setting aside the Impugned order with a direction to the Trial Court to consider the materials and evidence on record afresh in its right perspective and pass a fresh Judgment in accordance with law after hearing the parties on the basis of the materials already on record within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

4. Pursuant thereto, the acquitted/accused persons challenged the order dated 19.02.2007 passed by this Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.2006 of 2007 which was further numbered, after leave was granted, as criminal appeal No. 356 of 2008 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, finding the High Court order without any reasoning, set aside the same and remitted it to this Court to dispose of afresh in accordance with law.

Para 7 & 8 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment is quoted herein below :

“7. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E. R. 1148) observed “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.” In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed:

“Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking order. The inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

8. Above being the position, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to dispose of the revision petition afresh in accordance with law.”

As a result, the aforesaid revision application came up for hearing and the same is being disposed of by this order.

5. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Rajesh Das son of Sri Santu Das resident of village Sarsa, P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar filed PCR Case No.46 of 1995 against the accused Balram Das, Sunil Das, Dhirendra Kumar Singh and Jitendra Kumar Singh mentioning therein that all the accused persons kidnapped his minor sister Sarita Kumari aged about 15 years as per her school certificate on 20.11.94 in the night when she was sleeping along with his mother. The complainant searched for her but when she remained traceless he gave in