In Reference Received from 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Singrouli vs Ramjag Bind

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 394

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Prakash Chandra Gupta, JJ.
In Reference Received from 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Singrouli v. Ramjag Bind
Criminal Reference No. 14 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal No. 10771 of 2019 (Jabalpur): against the judgment dated 27.11.2019 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Singrouli in Sessions Trial No. 1500086/2014;
Decided on 5.12.2022

Advocates:
Manisth Datt with Ishan Datt as amicus curiae;
Arvind Pathak for accused; A. S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate for State.

Headnote:
(1) Motive -- is a state of mind -- can be gathered on basis of evidence led in case. (2012) 10 SCC 464 followed. [Para 50
(2) Witness -- witness of last seen together -- turned hostile --did not see deceased persons inside or outside house of appellant -- assumed from voice overheard by him that said persons must be inside house of appellant -- did not depose about date and time of such incident -- he is not eye-witness -- not safe to record or support conviction on basis of such statement solely based on assumption -- his evidence not of sterling quality sufficient to record conviction. [Paras 53 & 54
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 302 and 201 -- case based on circumstantial evidence -- prosecution miserably failed to lead evidence to establish that appellant, who was allegedly last seen together with deceased persons, alone was responsible for commission of crime and there was no other possibility of commission of crime by anybody else -- last seen 4-5 days ago from date of recovery of bodies -- time lag should have been explained and corroborated by leading supporting evidence -- entire chain needs to be established with utmost clarity and caution -- only one link cannot be reason to hold somebody guilty when it does not connect with other links to form complete chain of circumstances -- stones recovered from open place visible to others and accessible to all -- cannot be used against appellant -- accused cannot be convicted based on surmises and conjectures -- suspicion, however strong, cannot take place of proof -- well in which bodies of deceased persons were recovered does not belong to appellant -- injuries could have been sustained due to fall into well -- no previous enmity -- in absence of matching of blood group, recovery of axe from courtyard cannot be singular reason for affirming conviction -- complete chain must be established meticulously and with forensic clarity -- prosecution could not establish entire chain of circumstances -- appellant’s conviction cannot be upheld merely because he was convicted in previous case -- given benefit of doubt. AIR 2018 SC 2744, (2007)5 SCC 658, 2023 (1) JLJ 21 (SC), AIR 1984 SC 1622, (1999) 4 SCC 370, 2022 SCC Online SC 1396 and 2022 SCC Online SC 1396 followed. (2016) 14 SCC 640, AIR 2017 SC 2617, AIR 2002 SC 3206, (2003) 8 SCC 180, (2001) 7 SCC 318, (2016) 7 SCC 1 and 2019 SCC Online MP 7013 referred to. [Paras 54, 57, 62, 65 to 68
(4) Recovery -- absence of blood on weapon -- while making seizure, prosecution under no obligation to mention whether blood stains exist on seized weapon or not -- many times blood on weapon is not visible through naked eyes -- any finding in seizure memo about existence of blood neither essential nor can be reason for disbelieving FSL report -- FSL report is scientific report -- scientific equipments enable scientists/experts to trace blood. R/CRA No. 632 of 2022 decided on 18.8.2022 (Guj.) dissented from. [Paras 55 & 56
(5) Criminal Trial -- circumstantial evidence -- litmus test -- circumstantial evidence must be of sterling quality -- should be of a nature that conclusion can be drawn that appellant and appellant alone ‘must’ have committed offence -- not that appellant perhaps/might have committed offence. [Para 68
¼1½ gsrq && eu%fLFkfr gS && çdj.k esa is'k fd, x, lk{; d¢ vkèkkj ij vuqeku yxk;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2012½ 10 ,l lh lh 464 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 50
¼2½ lk{kh && vafre ckj lkFk ns[ks tkus dk lk{kh && i{kæ¨gh g¨ x;k && e`r O;fä;¨a d¨ vihykFkÊ d¢ Äj d¢ Òhrj ;k ckgj ugÈ ns[kk && mls lqukÃ nsus okys Loj ls èkkj.kk dh fd mä O;fä vihykFkÊ d¢ Äj d¢ Òhrj gh g¨axs && ,slh ÄVuk d¢ fnukad v©j le; d¢ ckjs esa vfÒlk{; ugÈ fn;k && og çR;{kn'kÊ lk{kh ugÈ && èkkj.kkek= ij vkèkkfjr ,sls dFku d¢ vkèkkj ij n¨"kflf) vfÒfyf[kr ;k lefrZr djuk fujkin ugÈ && mldk lk{; n¨"kflf) vfÒfyf[kr djus d¢ fy, i;kZIrr% mRÑ"V ugÈA ¼iSjk 53 ,oa 54
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && èkkjk 302 rFkk 201 && ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; ij vkèkkfjr ekeyk && vfÒ;¨tui{k ;g LFkkfir djus d¢ fy, lk{; is'k djus esa cqjh rjg vlQy fd d¢oy vihykFkÊ] t¨ e`r O;fä;¨a d¢ lkFk vfÒdfFkrr% vafre ckj ns[kk x;k Fkk] vijkèk fd, tkus d¢ fy, mÙkjnk;h Fkk rFkk vU; fdlh d¢ }kjk vijkèk fd, tkus dh vU; d¨Ã laÒkouk ugÈ Fkh && 'ko¨a dh cjkenxh d¢ fnukad ls 4&5 fnu iwoZ vafre ckj ns[kk x;k && le; d¢ varjky dk Li"Vhdj.k fn;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk rFkk leFkZu esa lk{; is'k dj laiqf"V dh tkuk pkfg, Fkh && laiw.kZ J`a[kyk vfèkdre Li"Vrk v©j lkoèkkuh ls LFkkfir dh tkuk vko';d && tc og vU; dfM+;¨a d¢ lkFk ifjfLFkfr;¨a dh ,d laiw.kZ J`a[kyk xfBr ugÈ djrh g¨ rc ek= ,d dM+h fdlh O;fä d¨ n¨"kh vfÒfuèkkZfjr djus dk dkj.k ugÈ g¨ ldrh && ,sls [kqys LFkku ls iRFkj cjken] t¨ vU;¨a d¨ n`';eku rFkk lÒh dh igq¡p esa && vihykFkÊ d¢ fo#) mi;¨x ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk && vfÒ;qä d¨ vuqeku¨a v©j vVdy¨a d¢ vkèkkj ij n¨"kfl) ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk && lansg fdruk Òh çcy D;¨a u g¨]] lcwr dk LFkku ugÈ ys ldrk && ftl dq¡, ls e`r O;fä;¨a d¢ 'ko cjken fd, x, og vihykFkÊ dk ugÈ && {kfr;k¡ dq¡, esa fxjus d¢ dkj.k g¨ ldrh FkÈ && d¨Ã iwoZrj 'k=qrk ugÈ && jä lewg d¢ feyku d¢ vÒko esa vk¡xu ls dqYgkM+h dh cjkenxh n¨"kflf) vfÒiq"V djus dk ,dek= vkèkkj ugÈ g¨ ldrh && laiw.kZ J`a[kyk lw{erk ls v©j fofèk fpfdRlk lacaèkh Li"Vrk ls LFkkfir dh tkuk vko';d && vfÒ;¨tui{k ifjfLFkfr;¨a dh laiw.kZ J`a[kyk LFkkfir ugÈ dj ldk && vihykFkÊ dh n¨"kflf) ek= blfy, ekU; ugÈ dh tk ldrh fd mls iwoZrj ekeys esa fl)n¨"k Bgjk;k x;k Fkk && lansg dk Qk;nk fn;k x;kA , vkb vkj 2018 ,l lh 2744] ¼2007½5 ,l lh lh 658] 2023 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 21 ¼mPpre U;k-½ , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 1622] ¼1999½ 4 ,l lh lh 370] 2022 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 1396 rFkk 2022 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 1396 vuqlfjrA ¼2016½ 14 ,l lh lh 640] , vkb vkj 2017 ,l lh 2617] , vkb vkj 2002 ,l lh 3206] ¼2003½ 8 ,l lh lh 180 ¼2001½ 7 ,l lh lh 318] ¼2016½ 7 ,l lh lh 1 rFkk 2019 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,e ih 7013 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 54] 57] 62] 65 ls 68
¼4½ cjkenxh && gfFk;kj ij jä dk vÒko && vfÒx`g.k djrs le; vfÒ;¨tui{k ;g mYys[k djus dh ckè;rk d¢ vèkhu ugÈ fd vfÒx`ghr gfFk;kj ij jä d¢ èkCcs gSa ;k ugÈ && vusd ckj gfFk;kj ij jä lkekU; n`f"V ls fn[kkÃ ugÈ nsrk && jä g¨us d¢ ckjs esa vfÒx`g.k Kkiu esa d¨Ã Òh fu"d"kZ u r¨ vfuok;Z gS] v©j u og U;k;yf;d ç;¨x'kkyk d¢ çfrosnu dk vfo'okl djus dk dkj.k gh g¨ ldrk gS && U;k;kfy;d ç;¨x'kkyk dk çfrosnu oSKkfud çfrosnu gS && oSKkfud midj.k¨a ls oSKkfud@fo'ks"kK jä dk irk yxkus esa leFkZ g¨rs gSaA vkj@lh vkj , Ø- 632 lu~ 2022 fu.kÊr fnukad 18-8-2022 ¼xqt-½ folEerA ¼iSjk 55 ,oa 56
¼5½ nkafMd fopkj.k && ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; && dl©Vh && ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; mRÑ"V xq.koÙkk dk g¨uk vko';d && ,slh çÑfr dk g¨uk pkfg, fd fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk ld¢ fd vihykFkÊ] v©j d¢oy vihykFkÊ us ^vo';^ vijkèk fd;k g¨xk && ;g ugÈ fd vihykFkÊ us laÒor%@'kk;n vijkèk fd;k g¨xkA ¼iSjk 68

JUDGMENT

1. The Criminal Appeal filed under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and Reference impugns the judgment dated 27.11.2019 passed in S.T. No. 1500086/2014 whereby the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Singrouli found the appellant as guilty for committing offence under sections 302 and 201 of IPC and imposed death sentence and sentence of 5 years respectively with fine, with default stipulation.

Case of Prosecution

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 29.4.2014, the complainant Ramshiroman Bind son of Udgan Bind filed a missing persons report and informed the police that his father Udgan Bind and mother Shanti Bind are not traceable. On 30.4.2014, the dead bodies of both the said persons were found in a well which as per prosecution story, owned by and belongs to the appellant. A Dehati Nalisi merg was registered. The statement of witnesses were recorded. The spot was inspected. After completion of formalities of post mortem etc., both the dead bodies were handed-over to family members for cremation. During the investigation, the prosecution found that because of enmity, the appellant murdered both the persons and thrown their bodies in the said well. As per the appellant’s memorandum, a weapon namely ‘axe’ was recovered. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class from where it was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge on 28.6.2014.

3. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. The Court below framed four questions (i) Whether death of Udgan Bind and Shanti Bind @ Santo Bind is homicidal in nature ? (ii) Whether appellant has committed murder of said two persons ? (iii) Whether the appellant in order to hide the bodies of the said two persons, thrown the bodies in the well ? (iv) conviction and sentence?

4. In support of its case, prosecution introduced following witnesses namely, Ramshiroman (PW-1), Amol Singh (PW-2), Dr. V.N. Satnami (PW-3), Rambhajan Bind (PW-4), Haridas (PW-5), Bhoj Pratap Bind (PW-6), Ramrati (PW-7), Ravendra Kumar Singh (PW-8), Munni Bai (PW-9), Shivdayal Bind (PW-10), Harilal Bind (PW-11), Bhola Prasad (PW-12), Bhoopendra Singh (PW-13), Shri Mahendra Pandey (PW-14), A.P. Goswami (PW-15). In turn, defence introduced two witnesses namely, Sushila Bind (DW-1) and Ramashankar (DW-2).

5. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the Court below opined that the appellant has committed offence under section 302 (two counts) and section 201 of the I.P.C. Thereafter, appellant was heard on the question of quantum of sentence. After hearing the parties, the Court below imposed the sentences mentioned hereinabove.

Contentions of Amicus Curiae /Appellant

6. Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Counsel/Amicus Curiae submits that para-40 of the impugned judgment makes it clear that judgment is not based on any eye-witness account. Indeed, the whole case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. As per the prosecution story, the incident had taken place between 25.4.2014 to 30.4.2014. The FIR (Ex.P/25) and ‘Dehati Nalisi’ (Ex.P/17) were recorded on 30.4.2014. The Rojnamcha entry recorded pursuant to information given by Ramshiroman (PW-1) shows that the said two persons were missing. Their dead bodies were found on 30.4.2014.

7. The inquest proceeding in which the witnesses were put to notice was relied upon to show that six persons were directed to remain present before the Investigating Officer namely Ramshiroman, Rambhajan Bind, Rampratap, Purshottam Sahu, Banwari and Taramati. Out of these six persons, only Purshottam Sahu was an independent person and all other persons summoned were relatives/family members of deceased persons. The post mortem reports of Shanti Bind and Udgan Bind show that the reason of death is head injury and it appears to be a homicidal death occurred between 4-5 days. The post mortem report of Udgan Bind shows that there was a fracture in his occipital