Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Jumed Khan, S/o. Late Akbar Shekh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 344 of 2022
Decided On : 19-03-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER AND DISPOSAL OF BODY - IPC SECTIONS 302, 201 - The court discussed Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertain to murder and causing disappearance of evidence, respectively. The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a clear chain of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction under these sections. It highlighted that mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction and that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court ultimately found that the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the accused and the crime, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Jumed Khan, was convicted for the murder of his wife, Samina Khatoon, based on allegations of domestic violence and a motive related to her desire to be a nominee in her husband's service record. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the deceased's body and testimonies regarding the motive for the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while there was evidence of motive and the deceased's body was recovered, the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the murder. The absence of direct evidence and the lack of examination of the initial investigating officer were critical flaws in the prosecution's case.
Issues: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the principles governing circumstantial evidence, stating that all circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt, must point exclusively to the guilt of the accused, and must form a complete chain that excludes any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The court emphasized that suspicion alone cannot replace proof.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Chand, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2018 and the order of sentence dated 29.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.251 of 2008, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to RI for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/-for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was further directed to undergo RI for 7 years along with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In case of default in payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo RI for one year.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal are that the informant Ali Bux Mian had given the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that his daughter was married with Jumed Khan 20-21 years ago. After marriage, both remained happily for some time, thereafter, her husband began to torture her, for this reason, his daughter had instituted a case in the Court of Giridih, due to which, his son-in-law Jumed Khan, his samdhi Nabi Hasan and Noor Hasan, all three had assaulted his daughter and committed murder on 31.12.2007 and threw her dead body nearby the bush in order to screen themselves. On this, the FIR was lodged, which was registered as Case Crime No. 01 of 2008 with the Jogta Police Station, District Dhanbad under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation, exonerated two accused persons, namely, Nabi Hasan and Noor Hasan and filed charge-sheet against the appellant Jumed Khan under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance was taken by the Magistrate concerned, who committed the case for trial to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, who subsequently transferred the same to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Dhanbad.
4. The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Dhanbad framed the charge against the accused-appellant Jumed Khan under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was explained to him, he denied the charge and claimed to face the trial.
5. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused in oral evidence examined altogether eight witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, Ishwar Ram; P.W.-2, Dr. Shailendra Kumar; P.W.-3, Ahasan Mian @ Khan; P.W.-4, Sadique Ansari; P.W.-5, Ali Bux Mian and; P.W.-6, Kiran Surin and in documentary evidence the prosecution has adduced Exhibit-1, Postmortem report of deceased; Exhibit-2, Signature of Ahasan Mian on inquest report and; Exhibit-3, Certified copy of complaint petition of C.P. Case No.1270 of 2005.
6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which, he denied the incriminating circumstances in evidence against him and stated himself to be innocent.
7. The learned trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and learned counsel for the State, passed the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2018 and the order of sentence dated 29.11.2018 holding the appellant-accused Jumed Khan guilty for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated hereinabove.
8. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2018 and the order of sentence dated 29.11.2018, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant.
9. Heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State and perused the materials available on record.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no link in the chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant. The Investigating Officer has also not b
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, and mere suspicion i....
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained solely on the basis of last-seen evidence without corroborative proof and a clear motive, as established by the principles governing ....
The judgment underscores the necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstances and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain pointing to guilt; the absence of independent corroboration and strong motive creates reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and in cases of circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the accused unless a complete chain of evidence is est....
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
The absence of direct evidence and incomplete circumstantial proof precludes conviction, emphasizing that suspicion cannot substitute for conclusive evidence in a criminal trial.
Circumstantial evidence must be fully established beyond reasonable doubt, with the burden shifting to the accused after the prosecution proves its case.
Point of Law : Any weakness in the defence case would not obviate the prosecution from establishing the charge based on circumstantial evidence.
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
