Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain of circumstances leading to guilt; absence of concrete evidence raises doubt warranting acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 783 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1036 of 2018, Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1149 of 2018, Mr. P.K. Appu, learned A.P.P., Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P., Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

2. All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05-06-2018 (sentence passed on 11-06-2018) passed by Sri Surendra Nath Mishra, learned Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in S.T. No. 85/13 and S.T. No. 16/14 whereby and whereunder, the appellant Basant Kumar Mahto has been convicted for the offences under Section 302 , 201/34 IPC , while the other appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 201 /34 and the appellant Basant Kumar Mahato has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- for the offence under and in default in payment of fine, to undergo additional 6 months simple imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under and in default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. So far as the rest of the appellants are concerned, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under /34 and in default in payment of fine, they have to undergo additional simple imprisonment for 4 months.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the written report of Prahlad Chandra Mahto dated 23-08-2012 in which it has been stated that he had solemnized the marriage of his daughter Manju Devi with Basant Kumar Mahto in the year 2008 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the daughter of the informant used to be tortured by her husband and in-laws. The commission of torture used to be disclosed by the daughter of the informant to the informant and his wife, but to keep their prestige in the society, they used to ask their daughter to continue to reside at her matrimonial house. After one year of the marriage, the grandson of the informant was born in the year 2009. The accused persons, despite the birth of a child, continued with the torture upon the daughter of the informant for the land situated at Ranchi. It has been stated that on seeing the plight of the daughter of the informant, he had made an agreement for the land but the same was not registered for which she was subjected to abuses and assault. On 14-08-2012, in the evening, Basant Kumar Mahto called up the wife of the informant and started enquiring about his wife and son to which, the wife of the informant replied that they have not come to her house. The phone was thereafter, snatched by the sister-in-law of Basant Kumar Mahto, who said that on the previous day at 9:00PM, there was a quarrel between Basant Kumar Mahto and Manju Devi regarding the land situated at Ranchi at which a crowd had gathered and Basant Kumar Mahto had pressed the neck of Manju Devi. She had also stated that she had intervened and pacified the situation and thereafter, she had disconnected the call. On this information, the wife of the informant got nervous and disclosed about the conversation to her neighbours. The wife of the informant thereafter, went to her in-laws’ place and with her another son-in-law, Maheshwar Mahto, Madhusudan