IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Palko Devi wife of Late Sukhilal Mahto - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.284 of 1998 (R)
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction for murder - The appellant was convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; however, the conviction was challenged on grounds of lack of evidence. The informant's testimony was not supportive, and most witnesses turned hostile. The court found no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime. (Paras 2, 15, 18)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of supportive witness testimony and the hostile nature of key witnesses led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. (Paras 15, 18)
Facts of the case:
The prosecution case arose from a Fardbayan recorded after the informant discovered his father murdered. The informant's mother was accused of the murder due to her husband's abusive behavior, but the evidence was largely circumstantial and unsupported. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to uphold the conviction, noting that the informant's testimony was not corroborated by other witnesses, and the circumstances did not implicate the appellant. (Paras 18, 19)
Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove the appellant's guilt and whether the conviction was justified based on the evidence presented. (Paras 15, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence in criminal cases. (Paras 18, 19)
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.
JUDGMENT :
R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.08.1998 (sentence passed on 13.08.1998) passed by Shri R. K. Dubey, learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 741 of 1996, whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life,
3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbayan of Ajay Kumar Mahto recorded on 15.08.1996, in which it has been stated that on 14.08.1996 in the night, the informant after having his meals, went to sleep. He did not hear any unusual sound in the night. At around 4-5 a.m., he heard a sound of wailing of his mother at which he went and found his mother crying in the courtyard and when the informant went inside the room, he saw his father lying dead on the cot in a pool of blood. The mother of the informant had disclosed to him that she had committed the murder by means of a Kudal. The reason for the occurrence is that the father of the informant used to drink liquor and commit assault upon his mother. The father of the informant used to work in CISF and was posted at Madras but on account of his drinking habits, he was dismissed from service about 10 years back. A rickshaw and a tempo were purchased by the father of the informant but both were sold off and the entire money was spent on liquor. It has been stated that the father of the informant had also sold off one acre of land to satisfy his urge of drinking. A few days back, the younger son, aged 5 years, was brutally assaulted by the father of the informant who was in an intoxicated state. The mother of the informant, due to such activities of his father, lost her mental balance and committed the murder.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Kanke P.S. Case No. 60 of 1996 was instituted under Section 302 I.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 741/1996. Charge was framed under Section 302 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case.
6. P.W. 1 Tarkeshwar Mahto and P.W. 2 Dashmi Devi have both been declared hostile by the prosecution.
7. P.W. 3 Salo Devi has stated that she had never heard of any quarrel between the accused and the deceased. She had seen the dead body of Sukhilal lying on a cot.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she cannot say as to who had committed the murder of Sukhilal.
8. P.W. 4 Patho Devi and P.W. 5 Manilal Mahto have been declared hostile by the prosecution.
9. P.W. 6 Mutiya Devi has been tendered by the prosecution.
10. P.W. 7 Ajay Kumar Mahto and P.W. 8 Sitaram Mahto did not support the case of the prosecution and both were accordingly declared hostile by the prosecution.
11. P.W. 9 Manju Kumari has been tendered by the prosecution.
12. P.W. 10 Raj Kumar Paswan was posted as a Sub- Inspector of Police in Kanke P.S. and on 15.08.1996, he had entered a station diary entry on a rumour that a person has been murdered. He proceeded towards village Garu along with other Police personnel and recorded the Fardbayan of Ajay Kumar Mahto. He has proved the Fardbayan which has been marked as Exhibit-3. He has also proved the signature of the informant as well as his own signature upon the Fardbayan which have been marked as Exhibit-3/1 and 3/2 respectively. The formal FIR has been marked as Exhibit-4 and the signature of the Officer In- Charge upon the same as Exhibit-4/1. The inquest report prepared by him has been marked as Exhibit-1 and his signature on the same has been marked as Exhibit-1/3. The seizure list of seized blood-stained Ku
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; lack of evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and insufficient circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution must provide consistent and corroborative evidence; significant discrepancies in witness accounts result in reasonable doubt, leading to the reversal of conviction.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction; mere confessions without corroboration are insufficient.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or hostility of the informant undermines the conviction.
The judgment emphasizes the need for clear and unimpeachable evidence to establish guilt in criminal cases, highlighting the importance of witness reliability and consistent evidence.
A conviction under Section 302 IPC requires credible evidence; mere presence amidst noise does not suffice to establish guilt.
The reliance on suspicion without substantive evidence to convict is a serious legal error; convictions must be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must be corroborated with direct proof; a case with hostile witnesses and lack of motive cannot sustain a conviction for murder.
Conviction under Section 302 upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony, despite the informant being declared hostile; demonstrates the reliability of child witnesses in criminal proceedings.
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.