IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Ramrai Surin - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.917 of 2018
Decided on : 03-10-2024
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants dated 29.07.2017/31.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum Chaibasa in S.T. Case No.269 of 2013 arising out of Sonua P.S. Case No.42 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No.354 of 2012 (hereinafter the called the impugned judgment and order), whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under sections 302, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousand) under sections 302/34 of India Penal Code and further rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) for the offence under sections 201/34 of Indian Penal Code with default stipulation.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 02.11.2012, the informant Ram Lal Tanti, who happens to be Chawkidar No.05/2017 was deputed at Bank of India, Govindpur received information from some account holders of the bank that a dead body of an unknown person is lying into the ring well of Dipasai. The informant proceeded to the said place and saw an unknown dead body lying into the well. The informant communicated to the nearest police station then, the police arrived at the place of occurrence and the dead body of the deceased was brought out from the well. There were marks of assault on head, chest and both legs, which were fractured. It appeared that some unknown persons after committing murder have disposed of the dead body into the well about 4-5 days ago. The inquest report was prepared but no local persons could identify the deceased.
3. The Officer-in-Charge of Sonua Police Station, after recording the statement of the informant sent the same for registration of FIR for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. The charge of investigation was given to Sub-Inspector Mahendra Baraik(PW-8) and the confessional statement of the present appellants were recorded by the then Officer-in-Charge of Sonua Police Station namely Suraj Oraon and the seizure list of seized materials were also prepared by him (Ext.3/1,3/2 and 3/3), which were received by Investigating Officer. In the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has examined several witnesses of facts and obtained post-mortem report of the deceased, which was identified by his brother by seeing photographs and he also sent the material exhibits to FSL, Ranchi for chemical examination and obtained the chemical examination report (Ext.6 and 6/1). It was also surfaced during the investigation that the name of the deceased was Motu Tiu, who was under love affairs with the appellant No.2 Pani Surin prior to her marriage with the appellant No.1, but in spite of her marriage, he continued his affairs with the appellant No.2 and always used to tease her. Due to this reason, both the appellants have killed the deceased by giving spade blows and disposed of his dead body in nearby well. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and one Budhuram Hembrom @ Kendu Hembrom, who had also assisted in disposing the dead body of the deceased.
4. In course of the trial, all together 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused persons.
Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, the following documents have also been marked as exhibits by the prosecution.
Ext.1/1:-Fardbeyan.
Ext.1/2:-Registration of Fardbeyan
Ext.2:-Postmortem report
Ext.3:-Signature of Ganesh Bandia on Seizure list.
Ext.3/1:-Seizure list of Kudal with wooden handle
Ext.3/2:-Seizure-list regarding the seizure of blood stained soil from the south corner of the room of the house of accused Ramrai Surin.
Ext.3/3:-Seizure-list of Mobile
Ext.3/4:-Seizure-list of Motorcycle
Ext.3/5:-Signature of Devashish Tiu on seizure-list
Ext.3/6
Circumstantial evidence must conclusively point to the guilt of the accused; insufficient evidence led to the reversal of conviction.
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; reasonable doubts justify acquittal.
The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, when established beyond reasonable doubt, can support convictions for murder and conspiracy, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of evidence....
(1) Circumstantial evidence – It is necessary for prosecution that circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence, including motive, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the evidence must be cogent, trustworthy, and exclude every possible hypo....
Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction – Theory of last seen – Reliability of - The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between point of time when Accused and deceased were seen las....
The conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a common intention to kill for financial gain through witchcraft.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence and confessions were insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.