2015 Supreme(MP) 1224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R. S. JHA, RAJENDRA MAHAJAN, JJ.
IN REFERENCE RECEIVED FROM DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANUPPUR – Appellant
Versus
PHOOLCHAND RATHORE – Respondent
Cri. Ref. No. 2 of 2015 and Cri. Appeal No. 1292 of 2015
Decided On : 11-12-2015

In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each fact which forms a chain of evidence so complete which leads to the inevitable and sole conclusion of guilt of the accused. In cases of circumstantial evidence the facts established by the prosecution should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and should not indicate the possibility of any other conclusion.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL REFERENCE - DEATH PENALTY - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - SECTION 201 IPC - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION - MOTIVE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - RELIABILITY OF WITNESSES - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - INVESTIGATION OFFICER'S STATEMENT - COURT'S FINDINGS - RECOMMENDATION FOR AWARD TO WITNESS - HELD, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE - APPEAL ALLOWED.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted of murder under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to death by the District and Sessions Judge, Anuppur, in Sessions Trial No. 72/2010. The prosecution's case was that the appellant had killed his wife, Sundariya Bai, by smashing her head against stones lying between railway tracks. The appellant's daughter, Madhuri, was the main witness for the prosecution, and she testified that her father had confessed to the crime and that she had seen him with bloodstained clothes and stones.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the trial court's conviction was based on unreliable evidence and that the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that Madhuri's testimony was full of discrepancies and omissions, and that her statement to the police did not mention the extra-judicial confession that she had testified to in court. The court also found that the motive for the crime, which was said to be the appellant's anger over his wife's possession of jewelry, was not established by the evidence. Additionally, the court found that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's theory of how the crime was committed, and that the investigation officer's statement was unreliable. The court also criticized the trial court for making a recommendation that Madhuri be given an award for her testimony, which the court found to be inappropriate.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the trial court erred in relying on the testimony of Madhuri. 3. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the appellant had a motive to kill his wife. 4. Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution's theory of how the crime was committed. 5. Whether the investigation officer's statement was reliable. 6. Whether the trial court erred in making a recommendation that Madhuri be given an award for her testimony.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had not proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence was unreliable and the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution was not sufficient. 2. The court held that the trial court erred in relying on the testimony of Madhuri, as her testimony was full of discrepancies and omissions and her statement to the police did not mention the extra-judicial confession that she had testified to in court. 3. The court held that the trial court erred in finding that the appellant had a motive to kill his wife, as the evidence did not support the prosecution's theory that the appellant was angry over his wife's possession of jewelry. 4. The court held that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's theory of how the crime was committed, as the injuries on the deceased's body were not consistent with the prosecution's theory that the appellant had smashed her head against stones. 5. The court held that the investigation officer's statement was unreliable, as it contained discrepancies and omissions and the investigation officer had failed to properly investigate the crime scene. 6. The court held that the trial court erred in making a recommendation that Madhuri be given an award for her testimony, as this was inappropriate.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence. The appellant was acquitted of the charges against him and ordered to be released from custody.