SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 868

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mrs. Alpana Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

Circumstantial evidence must conclusively point to the guilt of the accused; insufficient evidence led to the reversal of conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 201, and 34 - Conviction for murder and destruction of evidence - Appellants convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment and fines - The trial court's reliance on circumstantial evidence was questioned due to lack of direct evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. (Paras 1, 9, 14)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The prosecution's case was based solely on circumstantial evidence, which was found insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the circumstances must conclusively point to the guilt of the accused. (Paras 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of murdering Motu Tiu due to a love affair and disposing of his body in a well. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including confessions and recoveries, which were contested by the defense. (Paras 2, 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, as the circumstantial evidence did not conclusively point to their involvement in the crime. (Paras 14, 15)

Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and whether the trial court's reliance on it was legally sustainable. (Paras 10, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must be compelling and that the prosecution's failure to establish a clear connection between the accused and the crime warranted the reversal of the conviction. (Paras 14, 15)

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

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:- Signature of Ramlal Tanti on Fardbeyan

    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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top