Manju Devi, w/o late Rinku Pasi @ late Rinku Pas, r/o village- Tikodih, PO-Badhdiha v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sunil Mandal, s/o
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Acquittal Appeal No. 9 of 2022 ------- Manju Devi, w/o late Rinku Pasi @ late Rinku Pas, r/o village- Tikodih, PO-Badhdiha, PS-Hirodih, District-Giridih (Jharkhand) presently residing at village-Chhataband, PO & PS-Begaband, … Appellant District-Giridih (Jharkhand). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sunil Mandal, s/o Shri Somar Mandal, r/o village, PO & PS- ... Respondents Bengabad, District-Giridih (Jharkhand). CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellant For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, APP --------
Decision
O R D E R 10th May 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. This acquittal appeal has been filed by Manju Devi who is the informant of Giridih (Bengabad) PS Case No. 12 of 2018 which was registered against Sunil Mandal under sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Rinku Pasi and for causing disappearance of his dead body. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Rinku Pasi left Kolkata on 11th January 2018 for collecting money from Sunil Mandal and on his way to Bengabad to meet Sunil Mandal he made a call to his wife on 12th January 2018 informing her that he had reached Giridih. According to the informant, she had spoken to her husband in the evening and he informed that Sunil Mandal would pay money in the night. Thereafter she lost contact with her husband and about 4:00 PM on 13th January 2018 she received an information that her husband has been killed and his dead body was thrown in the Rata river. On 14th January 2018, the informant found the dead body of her husband and, in the meantime, she received a threatening call from mobile no. 9674368078 warning her not to implicate Sunil Mandal. On conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against Sunil Mandal who 2 Acquittal Appeal No. 9 of 2022 has faced the trial in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 2019. 3. During the trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses but the informant did not turn up in the Court to tender her evidence. PW1, PW2, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW8 were declared hostile when they were tendering evidence in the Court. PW3 and PW4 have deposed in the Court that they heard about a dead body lying near Sonwadih canal – PW4 is the inquest witness. 4. The trial Judge has held as under: “18. From perusal of oral testimony of witnesses, it is crystal clear that only PW3 and PW4 are main witness of this case. Both have been hearsay and not supported the prosecution story. Both the witnesses have admitted that how the deceased was died having no knowledge and sustained injuries. 19. In find substance in the aforesaid facts because just after the alleged occurrence, dead body was recovered from the canal. In the next morning when police recorded fardbeyan of the informant. It is necessary to mentioned for the examination Informant Manju Devi court has taken efforts and issue summon on dt. 15.05.21 letter to S.P by no. 218/5.3.21 but informant has not turned up. In the direction Ld P.P issue notices and submitted its SR dt. 01/12/21 that 'gaon walo ne bataya ki Pati Ki mritu ke baad sakshi Kabhi gram tikodih nahi ayi'. Which shows that informant was not interest adduced evidence. Further that Informant already file a petition to entered in compromise itself shows that she has deliberately avoid to attend the court and fail to depose her evidence. 20. I find no iota of evidence to prove the involvement of accused in the alleged offence. In absence of cogent and reliable concrete evidence against the accused, I am constrained to hold that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In this view of the matter, accused is found innocent and acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The accused is in custody from 05.11.2018. Accordingly accused is liable to be acquittal due to lankness of prosecution evidence.” 5. Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the informant would submit that a proper notice was not served upon the informant so as to call her for her evidence in the Court. 6. Evidently the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution the circumstances, such as, Rinku Pasi was last seen in the company of Sunil Mandal and the informant has received a threatening call are such incriminating materials which would fasten criminal liability on the accused for committing murder of Rinku Pasi. 7. In a case based on circumstantial evidence the circumstances on the basis of which the conclusion of guilt is to be 3 Acquittal Appeal No. 9 of 2022 drawn must be fully established, of conclusive nature and must exclude all possible hypothesis except the one which must unerringly establish that it was the accused who has committed the crime. 8. In “Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan” (1976) 1 SCC 621, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “14. It is well settled that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests. Firstly, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. Secondly, these circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Thirdly, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. That is to say, the circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis save that of the accused's guilt.” 9. Going by the information given to the police by the informant, we would observe that even if her testimony was taken in the Court the informant could have tendered evidence only to the effect that her husband had informed her that he had reached Giridih on 12th January 2018 and Sunil Mandal had promised him to pay money in the night. This statement of the informant would at best raise suspicion against the accused and nothing more. The trial Judge has rightly held that there is no substantive piece of evidence against the accused to infer that he is the person who has committed murder of Rinku Pasi. It is well remembered that suspicion howsoever strong shall not take the place of legal evidence and while so, merely on suspicion conviction of the accused cannot be recorded. 10. In “Vijay Kumar Arora v. State (NCT of Delhi)” (2010) 2 SCC 353” the Hon'ble Supreme Court put a word of caution by observing that the Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjecture and suspicions do not take place of legal proof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “16.1. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is well settled. In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind may take place of proof. Suspicion, however strong, cannot be allowed to take place of proof and therefore, the court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take place of legal proof. However, it is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual incident, but the circumstances can not 4 Acquittal Appeal No. 9 of 2022 fail. Therefore, many a times it is aptly said that “men may tell lies, but circumstances do not”.” 11. In our opinion, in absence of clinching evidence on complicity of Sunil Mandal in the crime he could not have been convicted for committing murder and causing disappearance of the dead body of Rinku Pasi. 12. While dealing with a challenge to the judgment of acquittal, the High Court is required to keep in mind that unless it is shown that there are compelling circumstances acting as an Appellate Court the High Court shall not interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 13. In “Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi v. High Court of A.P.” (2013) 14 SCC 145 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “25. This Court has time and again laid down parameters for interference by a superior court against the order of acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.” 14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, we find no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, Acquittal Appeal No. 9 of 2022 is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 10th May 2023 Amit N.A.F.R