Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Satya Charan Baski, son of Late Anand Baski - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 940 of 2015
Decided On : 21-02-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - IPC SECTION 302, CrPC SECTIONS 374(2), 389(1) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to punishment for murder, and Sections 374(2) and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which relate to appeals against conviction and the power to suspend sentences. The court interpreted these sections to affirm the conviction based on eyewitness testimony, emphasizing that the absence of forensic evidence does not undermine the credibility of eyewitness accounts. The court concluded that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the affirmation of the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Satya Charan Baski, was convicted for the murder of his wife, Parwati Baski, after being found at the scene with a blood-stained axe. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of several eyewitnesses who heard the victim's cries and saw the appellant fleeing the scene. The appellant claimed innocence, suggesting alternative theories for the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence credible, particularly the eyewitness accounts that placed the appellant at the scene with the murder weapon. The court ruled that the absence of forensic evidence did not detract from the strength of the eyewitness testimony, which was sufficient to establish guilt.
Issues: 1. Whether the conviction was justified based on the evidence presented. 2. Whether the case was based on circumstantial evidence or eyewitness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the case was primarily based on eyewitness testimony rather than circumstantial evidence. It emphasized that the prosecution had established a clear chain of evidence linking the appellant to the crime, and the burden of proof shifted to the appellant to explain his presence at the scene.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC were affirmed.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) read with 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 25.07.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.96 of 2013, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for six months.
2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Janeshwar Hembram, alleging therein that on the intervening night of 13/14.11.2012 the informant was sleeping in house when he heard the cry alarm of his sister, who was sleeping in another room with her husband Satya Charan Baski(accused/appellant), the present accused. When the informant along with other members of the family reached there, he found his sister Parwati Baski lying in pool of blood and the accused Satya Charan Baski was standing there with blood-stained axe. The accused was over-powered. On being confronted as to why he has committed murder of his wife. He stated that his wife used to go outside the house on the pretext to meet the call of nature in unwanted hours. He suspected that she was having an illicit affair with someone else due to which he has committed murder of his wife Parwati Baski.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Nirsa P.S. Case No.313 of 2012 dated 14.11.2012 under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused Satya Charan Baski was registered.
4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet on 28.01.2013 against the accused under sections 302 of the I.P.C.
5. The cognizance of the alleged offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 31.01.2013.
6. On 23.03.2013, the charge under sections 302 I.P.C was framed against the accused, namely, Satya Charan Baski, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses, namely, Sakodi as P.W. 1, Nunu Lal Hembram as P.W. 2, Janeshwar Hembram (informant and brother of deceased) as P.W. 3, Dr. Swapan Kr. Sarak as P.W. 4, Srimati Hembram as P.W. 5, Suklal Hembram as P.W. 6, Umesh Hembram as P.W. 7, Lagan Hembram as P.W. 8, Shiba Hembram as P.W. 9, Dilip Kol as P.W. 10 and Binod Kumar as P.W. 11.
8. The prosecution has also proved the signature of Nunulal Hembram on fardbeyan and inquest report (carbon copy) as Exts. 1 and 2, fardbeyan as Ext. 3, signature of Janeshwar Hembram on inquest report as Ext. 2/1, seizure list as Ext. 4, signature of Janeshwar Hembram on seizure list as Ext. 4/1, P.M report as Ext. 5, the entire inquest report of deceased as Ext. 6 and signature of P.W. 11 on formal F.I.R as Ext. 7.
9. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code wherein he has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence.
10. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence of prosecution witnesses found the charges levelled against the appellant proved.
11. Accordingly, the appellant has been found guilty under section 302 of IPC, as such convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2015, which is the subject matter of instant appeal.
12. Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order of conviction: -
(iii) The suggestion to the effect that the brother has killed his sister and only in order to save his life he has implic
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 sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proof in criminal trials, and the evaluation of incriminating facts and circumstances.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code requires credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt, including corroborative evidence when relying on confessions or weapon recovery.
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances consistent only with the accused's guilt, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that....
Since there is no proper evidence that axe which was allegedly recovered was murder weapon, medical evidence that such an axe can cause the injuries that were found on the deceased, by itself, cannot....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a conviction cannot be based solely on the recovery of a murder weapon without corroborative evidence.
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
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
