Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SRI ANANDA SEN, SRI SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Mukesh Shivhare, S/o. Late Turam Shivhare - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1073 of 2017
Decided On : 13-03-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - Murder, Attempted Murder, Arson - IPC Sections 302, 307, 436 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 302 (punishment for murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance) of the Indian Penal Code. It emphasized the necessity for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found significant gaps in the evidence, particularly the lack of independent witnesses and the absence of any incriminating material at the scene, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's involvement in the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for setting fire to the informant's house, resulting in severe burns to the informant and her children, and ultimately the death of her daughter. The informant claimed to have witnessed the appellant fleeing the scene after igniting the fire. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the informant's testimony and a confessional statement from the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Key evidence was lacking, including independent witnesses and medical records corroborating the injuries claimed by the informant and her son. The court noted inconsistencies in the informant's statements and the absence of any evidence of flammable materials at the scene.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the appellant under Sections 302, 307, and 436 of the IPC beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It highlighted that any reasonable doubt must result in acquittal, as established in previous case law.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
Ananda Sen, J.
Appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 27th March, 2017 and 1st April, 2017, respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge XII, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for 6 (six) months; further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code; and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months for offences under Section 436 of the Indian Penal.
2. On 01.12.2012 at about 22.00 Hrs. the informant alongwith her two children Shruti (daughter aged 7 years) and Ayush (son aged 5 years), after having their meal went for sleep. At about 23.00 Hrs. the informant woke up due to flames of intense fire in her house and she saw the accused (appellant) running away from the house. She asked him as to what had happened, upon which he replied that he will come after paying to the tempo person. The informant any how tried to save her two children and with the help of neighbours managed to come out of the house with her children. During this, her daughter was badly burnt and the informant and her son also were partially burnt. It is stated that the appellant was friend of informant’s husband and due to this she got acquaintance with him and even in absence of informant’s husband also the appellant used to visit their home. It is alleged that last night also the appellant had visited her house when a verbal altercation had occurred, post which the appellant had threatened her of consequences. It is alleged that it is the appellant who had set the house of the informant on fire with an intention to kill them.
3. Fardbeyan with the above allegations by the informant Chanchal Devi, was recorded by the A.S.I. of Police, Gopal Hembram on 02.12.2012 at 01.00 a.m. at M.G.M. Hospital. Farbeyan of the informant was forwarded by the Officer-in-charge of M.G.M. Police Station to the Officer-in-Charge, Mango Police Station, whereupon Mango Police Station Case No.589 of 2012 dated 02.12.2012 was registered for offences under Sections 285, 337, 338, 307, 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the daughter of the informant died during course of treatment, whereafter Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. Inquest was done and postmortem was also conducted. Appellant was arrested at Mumbai and remanded to Arthur Road Jail. He was remanded to custody in this case on 17.12.2012.
4. Investigation was taken up by the police and upon completion, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Sections 285, 337, 338, 307, 436, 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter cognizance of the offence was taken by order dated 28.01.2013 and case was committed to the Court of Sessions by order dated 18.02.2013.
5. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 302, 307, 436 of the Indian Penal Code, which were read over to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges, examined nine witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Subodh Gaur, P.W.2 Chotelal Sharma, P.W.3 Pappu Singh, P.W.4 Chanchal Devi (informant), P.W.5 Santosh Upadhaya, P.W.6 Aayush Kumar Upadhaya, P.W.7 Dr. Uma Shankar Prasad, P.W.8 Ramashish Prasa
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must result in acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and non-examination of key witnesses can undermine the entire case, justifying acquittal.
The duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond doubt, the need for a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt in a case based on circumstantial evidence, and the entitlement of the ac....
The conviction for arson was overturned due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies, granting the appellant the benefit of doubt.
Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal trials, necessitating clear and cogent evidence for a conviction.
(1) Mere suspicion would not be sufficient unless circumstantial evidence tendered by prosecution leads to conclusion that it “must be true” and not “may be true”.(2) Failure to explain can only be h....
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness accounts lead to reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s culpability.
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
