High Court · 2024
Case Details
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1214 of 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 22.04.2017 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 27.04.2017 PASSED BY KUMARI RANJANA ASTHANA, JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER-XVII-CUM-FTC(CAW), RANCHI IN SESSION TRIAL NO. 323 OF 2003. THE LEARNED ADDL. Ranvijay Singh .........APPELLANT(S) -Versus- The State of Jharkhand …… ….……RESPONDENT For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate. : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. . For the Informant(s) : M/s Indrajit Sinha and Akash Bhushan, Advocates For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. …… P R E S E N T SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI SUBHASH CHAND, J. …...... J U D G M E N T C.A.V. On: 12.06.2024 Pronounced On: 22/07/2024. Ananda Sen, J: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.04.2017 and order of sentence dated 27.04.2017 passed by Kumari Ranjana Asthana, the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-xvii-cum-FTC(CAW), Ranchi in Session Trial No. 323 of 2003, arising out of Kotwali(S) P.S. Case No. 70 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- convict submitted that the entire prosecution case is doubtful and the informant only to save his skin has falsely implicated this appellant in this case. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined, which caused great prejudice to this appellant as the place of Page/1 occurrence has not been properly proved. It is further submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was assaulted by the bricks, stone chips and other building materials, which were there on the terrace, but none of these materials were seized and whether there existed any material or not, has not been proved, due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer. He also submitted that it has come in evidence that the deceased was earlier under the regular treatment of Gynaecologist and the defence version is that there was intimacy between this appellant and the deceased has not been investigated by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that due to the aforesaid intimacy, which later on, came to the knowledge of the informant, the informant had committed the offence and he has falsely implicated this appellant. He further argued that it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant had forcibly taken the deceased dragging her to the terrace from her bed-room but neither in the bedroom nor in the way there appears any mark of violence. Further, it is surprising that a lady is being dragged to the terrace from her bedroom and she will not make any hue and cry and the three years old child would remain sleeping. As per him the father of the informant was also in the next room but he also did not hear
Legal Reasoning
through the evidences of this case, we find that admittedly there are no eye witnesses of the said occurrence and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. We examined the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2. They were standing in front of the house of the informant where a reception party was going on. They said that they had seen this appellant fleeing from the house of the informant. Thus the fact that this appellant entered the house of the deceased is proved. The second chain of the prosecution evidence is that this appellant entered the bedroom of the deceased and had dragged her to the terrace while three years old child was sleeping in the bedroom and the father of the Page/7 informant was also sleeping in the next room. None of the witnesses have supported this fact. This fact could have been established after proper examination of the place of occurrence, the house including the said room. If a lady is dragged forcibly from the bedroom through the stair-case to the terrace, she will definitely raise alarm and will scream, which is sufficient to wake-up the child and the father-in-law of the deceased, who was sleeping in the next room. There is nothing to suggest that she raised any alarm. Further if someone is dragging a lady forcibly, there would be mark of violence in the room itself. Materials in the room would be scattered and any one could understand that some violence had taken place in the said room. None has narrated about the same. The Investigating Officer would have been the best person who could have narrated about the aforesaid scenario, but surprisingly the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case. The next chain is the commission of occurrence i.e. attempt to commit rape and to commit murder by this appellant, which is on the terrace of the house. It is the case of the prosecution that there were bricks and other building materials and stone chips on the terrace and besides which, the deceased was found in half naked condition. Though one of the witnesses has stated that the building materials were there but in absence of the evidence of the Investigating Officer, his statement is not corroborated. The next circumstance is the material by which, the assault was committed. If the assault was committed by the bricks and stone-chips, there would be blood mark on these materials, which could have proved the prosecution case, but none of the bricks and building materials containing blood mark were seized or sent to forensic expert. Here non-examination of the Investigating Officer is the fatal for the prosecution, as it is the Investigating Officer who could have thrown light about this happening. Be it noted from the argument of the appellant and also from the tenor of the cross-examination, we understand that the defence is trying to built up a story that there was some relationship between the deceased and the appellant, as the deceased was not bearing a child as the informant was impotent. There were intimacy between them and they were in visiting terms. The fact that this appellant was really visiting the house of the informant is Page/8 substantiated by P.Ws. 2 and 4. Even the father of the informant also stated that the appellant used to come to his house. The informant also stated that the lady was not giving birth to child for which, she had to undergo treatment. Thus some part of the defence story is substantiated. If the I.O. would have been examined, this fact would have been cleared. 11. In criminal trial, the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Further in case, which is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution should complete the chain of the evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 has held as under; “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satpal Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2018) 6 SCC 610 has held that if there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Thus, breakage of any one link is fatal for the prosecution. 12. As we find that there are serious doubt about the prosecution case Page/9 and how the deceased died. Further the part of the prosecution story that she was dragged to the terrace forcibly is doubtful. The fact that she was assaulted by the bricks and stones is also doubtful. The defence version which they are trying to put forth is also not improbable. All these improbability and probability creates a doubt in the mind of this Court about the truth of the prosecution version. When a doubt is created in the mind of this Court, the same will go in favour of the accused. 13. Thus by giving the benefit of doubt, we acquit of this appellant by allowing this appeal. The judgment of conviction dated 22.04.2017 and the order of sentence dated 27.04.2017 passed by Kumari Ranjana Asthana, the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-xvii-cum-FTC(CAW), Ranchi in Session Trial No. 323 of 2003 is set aside. This Court directs the above named appellant be released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. 14. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. 15.
Arguments
any scream. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel for the appellant. This suggests that the deceased accompanied this appellant to the terrace on her free will and when they were in the terrace together, the informant came and caught them together and after this, the appellant fled away and the informant had committed the offence. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as State submitted that the prosecution evidence clearly suggests that save and except this appellant, none had committed the offence. They further submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly stated that they saw this appellant fleeing away from the house of the informant jumping from the gate of the house, thereafter the informant came and informed these witnesses that this appellant has assaulted his wife. Thereafter they had taken his wife to the hospital. The evidence of the witnesses that they saw this appellant fleeing from the house of the informant, suggests that it is only this appellant who had committed the offence. It is his case that the prosecution has been able Page/2 to prove the guilt of this appellant beyond all reasonable doubt which warrants conviction. 4. In this appeal, the appellant has been charged and convicted under Sections 376/511/302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant, Avinash Kumar Singh, in which, he stated that on 14.2.2003 at about 8:00 p.m., he had gone to attend a marriage party and returned at 11:30 p.m. In the night when he did not find his wife, Pushpa Devi, in the room. He heard some sound coming from roof of the house then he went up on the roof and saw that his neighbour Ranvijay Singh (the appellant) was present there and when he asked as to what he is doing there, then he pushed him and fled away. It is further alleged that his wife was lying on the roof in unconscious state and she was half naked and blood was oozing out from her head and body, thereafter he brought her to RMCH where she was declared dead by the doctor. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, Kotwali (Sukhdeonagar) P.S. Case No. 70/2003 was registered for the offence under Sections 376/511/302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the appellant. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for investigation and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 6. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has produced seven witnesses, who are as follows; P.W.1, Rajiv Bharti Singh, deposed that the incident had occurred on 14.2.2003 and on that day a marriage reception was arranged in the campus of the house of Prof. Jagdhari Singh. He further deposed that Ranvijay Singh left the reception party at about 11:00 p.m and at 11:30 p.m. while they were leaving they saw Ranvijay Singh (this appellant) fleeing away by jumping from the gate of the house. In the meantime, Avinash Kumar Singh came and said that on the roof top terrace of his house Ranvijay Singh was with his wife and after assaulting his wife, Ranvijay Singh fled away. After that they went to the roof top terrace of the house of Avinash Singh and saw that his wife was lying in unconscious condition and blood was oozing out. Page/3 They brought her to RMCH Ranchi where the Doctor declared her dead. P.W.2- Manish Prasad deposed that the incident occurred on 14.2.2003 and on that day, there was a marriage reception party of the son of Amar Prasad. He further deposed that at about 11:30 p.m he and some persons were talking, on the road then he saw that Ranvijay Singh jumping over the gate, meanwhile, Avinash also reached there running and said that Ranvijay Singh has killed his wife and fled away. Thereafter they went on the terrance of the house of Avinash saw that wife of Avinash Singh was lying in unconscious condition and blood was oozing out from her body. They brought her to RMCH for treatment where the Doctor declared her to be dead. In cross-examination, he stated that this appellant used to visit the house of the informant. P.W.3- Lal Jaiprakash Nath Sahdeo deposed that the incident occurred on 14.2.2003 at about 12:00 in the night and at that time, he was talking with Madan Choudhary then a boy came and said that Avinash is calling him and when he entered the house of Avinash, he saw Avinash was coming out from his house driving a car and Rajiv was sitting in the vehicle. Avinash told him that Ranvijay Singh has killed his wife. In cross-examination, he deposed that he knew about the incident from Avinash. P.W.4- Jaiprakash Choudhary, also deposed that the incident had occurred on 14.2.2003 at about 12:00 mid night and at that time he was at the verandah of his house. In the meantime, he was informed that Avinash was calling him then he reached his house and saw that Manish, Rajiv and Avinash were taking the deceased to Hospital by Maruti car. He further deposed that Avinash told him that Ranvijay Singh has killed his wife and fled away. In cross-examination, he stated that Avinash Kumar Singh (the informant) used to often go to Buxar (Bihar) as his ancestral house was there and he met the appellant in the house of the informant and the informant used to do the house hold work. P.W.5- Prof. Jagdhari Singh deposed that that occurrence had taken place on 14.2.2003 at about 11:30 in the night and at that time, he was sleeping in Page/4 his house and in his campus a reception party was going on and he also attended that reception. He further deposed that at about 12:00 at that night, his elder son Avinash told him that Ranvijay Singh has seriously injured his wife, who was daughter in-law of this witness, at the terrace. He further deposed that he saw that with the help of Rajiv Bharti, Manish Gupta and Pradeep Gupta, Avinash was taking his wife in car when the deceased was in a pool of blood. He further deposed that his son after returning from hospital told him that the doctor of RMCH has declared his wife dead. In cross-examination, he stated that the appellant used to come sometime to their house. He showed his ignorance on the question that the appellant used to come to his house in his absence when he used to go to college. P.W.6- Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary; who deposed that he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. His findings are as following:- The body was average built rigor mortis was present all over. The abdomen was not distended. Hooks of Bra are broken, Bra and Jhampher were torn at sides, Head bandaged and soaked with blood. Clothes were soaked with blood and right eye was blacked, there was oozing from the vagina. Facey odour indicating menstrual bleeding. ABRASION- i. Graze 8x4 c.m. on back of left chest middle part. ii. Graze 10x2 c.m. on back of left chest and abdomen. iii. Graze 15x4 c.m. on back of left abdomen middle part. iv. Graze 8x2 c.m. on back of left abdomen lower part and adjoining left buttock. v. 3 x 2 c.m., 5 X 1/2 c.m. and 4 x 1/2 c.m. on back of right abdomen lower part. vi. 2 x 1 c.m. and 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. on back of neck. vii. 4 x 2 c.m. on right clavicular region. viii. 5 x 1/2 c.m., 6 x 1/2 c.m. and 1 x 1/2 c.m. on front and upper part of left chest. ix. 5x4 c.m. on right cheek. x. 2 x 1 c.m. on right eye brow. xi. 4 x 2 c.m. and 2 x 1 c.m. on right side of fore head. xii. 1/2x1/2 c.m., 1/2x1/2 c.m. and 1x1/2 c.m. on front of chin. xiii. 6x4 c.m. on left side of fore head. xiv. 2x1 c.m. on left cheek. xv. 2x1 c.m. on back of right middle finger. xvi 1/2 c.m.x ½c.m. and 1/2x1/2c.m. on back of right ring finger. xvii 1x1/2 c.m. on back of right index finger with fracture of underline Page/5 phalangeal bones. xviii 2X1 c.m. on back of left index finger. xix 1x1/2c.m. and 1/2x 1/2c.m. on lower lip. CONTUSION OR BRUISE:- i. 6x4 c.m. on right cheek and adjoining right eye lids. ii, 5x4 c.m on back of left hand. LACERATED WOUND:- i. 2x1c.m.xbone deep on front of left middle finger with fracture of underline phalangeal bones. ii. 1x1/2 c.m.x soft tissue on tip of left index finger. iii. 2x1/2 c.m.x soft tissue on left side of forehead. 6x x scalp deep, iv.7x3 c.m. 2 c. m. x scalp deep and 5 x 3 c. m. x scalp deep on left fronto parietal region of head. v. 6x1 c. m. x scalp deep on right parietal eminence. Vi 5x2 scalp deep x 5x2 scalp deep on right parento occipital region of 5x2c.m.x scalp deep, head. INTERNAL There was contusion of whole scalp and depressed and comminuted fracture of right parieto occipital bone measuring 6 x 3 c.m. Area. There was contusion of brain and presence of subdural blood and blood clot over both hemispheres of brain. He opined that all injuries were ante-mortem, caused by hard and blunt substance. Death was due to multiple injuries as noted above.Time elapsed since death was between 3 to 18 hours form the time of postmortem examination. He has proved the P.M. Report as exhibited 1 which bears his signature. In his cross-examination, he stated that he can not say if the pathology report has been received regarding vaginal swab. The injury may be caused by iron ord and lathi. Abrasion and lacerated would may not be caused by same weapon lathi or rod and he cannot say the number of weapons used. P.W.7- Avinash Kumar Singh (the informant) deposed that the incident occurred on 14.2.2003 at about 11:30 p.m and at that time, he had gone to attend a marriage reception and when he returned to his house at about 11:30 p.m, and entered his house, he saw that his three years old daughter was sleeping and his wife was not there and in the adjacent room his father Page/6 was also sleeping. In the meantime, he heard some sound from the terrace thus he went there and saw that his neighbour Ranvijay Singh was beating his wife with a brick and when he asked the reason for this then he started fighting with him. He saw that his wife was lying there in half naked condition and when he proceeded towards his wife then Ranvijay Singh fled away from there. The blood was oozing out from the head of his wife. He further deposed that his fardbeyan was recorded by Darogaji and after reading it, he put his signature, which is marked as Ext.-2. In cross-examination, he stated that after the marriage the deceased was not conceiving for that he took the deceased (his wife) to Dr. Sobha Chakroverty and she had undergone some operation. He denied the suggestion that he was impotent and when his wife gave birth a child, he became suspicious. 7. The prosecution has also proved and exhibited P.M. Report (Ext.1) and Written report (Ext.-2) to substantiate its case. 8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which he has denied the circumstance and has claimed himself to be innocent. 9. The trial court after appreciating the evidences of both sides, held that the appellant is guilty for committing the offence under Section 376/511/302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going
Decision
Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) SUBHASH CHAND, J. - I agree. (SUBHASH CHAND, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated: 22 / 07/2024 NAFR/Anu/Cp.-3. Page/10