Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SRI ANANDA SEN, SRI SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Dulay Bhumij, son of late Sundra Bhumij - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.639 of 2018
Decided On : 20-03-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - IPC SECTION 302, EVIDENCE ACT SECTION 106 - The court discussed Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to punishment for murder, and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which addresses the burden of proof in certain circumstances. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the accused without a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The failure to establish the necessary links in the circumstantial evidence led to the conclusion that the prosecution did not meet its burden, influencing the court's decision to acquit the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Dulay Bhumij, was convicted for the murder of his wife, Indravati Bhumij, under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the informant's claim that Dulay had confessed to the murder due to mental imbalance. However, the informant died before trial, and the evidence presented was largely hearsay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Key witnesses did not witness the crime, and the evidence was primarily circumstantial with significant gaps. The court noted that the prosecution did not establish the presence of the appellant at the crime scene at the time of the murder.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the burden of proof was improperly shifted to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime. The failure to do so means the burden of proof cannot shift to the accused, as established in precedents regarding the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, directing his immediate release if not wanted in any other case.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Chand, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2018 and the order of sentence dated 21.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. Case No.128 of 2012, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Criminal Appeal are that the informant Lakhan Bhumij gave the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that on 17.07.2011, he had gone to graze the bull and about 11:30 hours he came back to his house and found his younger brother Dulay Bhumij having assaulted with spice grinder stone to the forehead of his wife, who succumbed to injuries. He asked his younger brother why he had done so, he stated that he had lost his mental balance. The occurrence took place around 11:00 O’clock. On this written information, Manjhari (Tatanagar) P.S. Case No.12 of 2011 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused Dulay Bhumij.
3. The Investigating Officer after having concluded the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the appellant Dulay Bhumij under Section 304 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, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, who subsequently transferred the same to the learned Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa.
4. The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West Singhbhum Chaibasa framed the charge against the accused-appellant Dulay Bhumij under Section 302 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 eleven witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, Gardi Samad; P.W.-2, Jambira Topno; P.W.-3, Mangal Singh Bhumij; P.W.-4, Ratan Soren; P.W.-5, Parvati Bhumij; P.W.-6, Ramay Samad; P.W.-7, Giridhari Gope; P.W.-8, Mahendra Sidhu; P.W.-9, Ghosa Sidhu; P.W.-10, Ramashish Prasad and; P.W.-11, Bipin Bihari Gautam and in documentary evidence the prosecution has adduced Exhibit-1, Signature of P.W.-1 on the seizure-list; Exhibit-2, Signature of P.W.-1 on the statement recorded under under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.; Exhibit-3, Postmortem report of the deceased; Exhibit-4, Signature of P.W.-6 on written report; Exhibit-4/1, Endorsement with regard to forwarding the written report to Manjhari Police Station for lodging the case; Exhibit-4/2, Endorsement with regard to lodging the case on the written report; Exhibit-5, Inquest report; Exhibit-6, Formal FIR; Exhibit-7, Search-cum-seizure list; Exhibit-8, statement of Gardi Samad (P.W.-1) recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and; Exhibit-8/1, Statement of Arjun Munda recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
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 also denied his presence at his house on the date of alleged occurrence 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 17.02.2018 and the order of sentence dated 21.02.2018 holding the appellant-accused Dulay Bhumij guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated hereinabove.
8. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.02.2018 and the order of sentence dated 21.02.2018, this Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant.
9. Heard the rival submi
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....
Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside - A grave and heinous crime had been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of guilt - Benefit of doubt to accused appellants.
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
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....
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.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The judgment establishes the principle that the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution, and the use of circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of exp....
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
