Jharkhand High Court: In a death reference filed on behalf of the respondent and the criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-accused, arising out of the judgment passed by the Trial Court, whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced to death under Sections 3021 and 342 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary*, JJ., stated that the prosecution had proposed that the accused was in the village on the night of evidence, but neither any oral nor electronic evidence was being led in support of it. An evening before the incidence, the informant had received a call from the deceased that she was abused, assaulted and threatened by ‘X’, but surprisingly the charge sheet was not submitted against her. There was evidence of past marital discord, but there was no evidence that the accused had extended life threat to the deceased. The Court stated that it was surprising how on these contradictory versions and sketchy evidence, the Trial court convicted the accused and awarded death sentence.
Thus, considering the manner in which the investigation, prosecution and trial was conducted, the Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused and allowed the criminal appeal.
Background
The present case was about a cold-blooded murder of a pregnant lady and her infant child allegedly committed by the accused, who was the husband of the deceased lady. The deceased was married to the accused in 2014 and there was normal conjugal relationship for some time between them. Thereafter, she was subjected to cruelty in reference to dowry demand. Meanwhile, the accused developed intimacy with some other girl, which was opposed by the deceased. As a result, the deceased was assaulted and returned to her parental home.
After much persuasion, the deceased went back to her matrimonial home and for the last two years, father of accused had developed illicit relationship with ‘X’ and when this was opposed by the deceased, she was extended life threat. On the evening of 13-12-2018, the deceased had telephonically informed that ‘X’ had abused and threatened her. On 14-12-2018, the deceased’s brother-in-law informed the informant (‘the deceased’s father’) on mobile that deceased was missing. Later the next morning when they reached, the deceased’s dead body was lying and the dead body of her infant child (15 months old), was found in the nearby well.
Thus, based on written report, the FIR was registered under Sections 302/34 of IPC against the accused, brother-in-law and ‘X’. Thereafter, on investigation the police submitted charge sheet only against the accused and he was put on trial for offence under Section 302/34 and 3153/34 of the IPC, keeping investigation pending against others.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that on close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it would transpire that these circumstances had not been properly proved and even if it was assumed that the circumstances were true to some extent, they did not complete the chain from which an inference could be drawn that it was the accused and no one else who committed the crime.
The Court stated that from the prosecution case, it appeared that apart from the accused, there were at least two persons who nursed grievance against the deceased and had abused, assaulted and threatened her. They were the father of accused and ‘X’ whose relationship was opposed and objected by the deceased. Thus, on the same day of incidence as per the FIR and the testimony of the informant, it was ‘X’ who had extended life threat to her. Thus, the circumstances did not unerringly establish that it was the accused who had committed the offence.
The Court stated that it was surprising that the Trial Court had accepted and acted upon the oral testimony of Investigating Officer to prove the tower location of the accused to be in the village on the date and time of incidence and of his being in constant touch with the deceased on the fateful night. The Trial Court appeared to have lost sight of the fact that electronic records produced for the inspection of the court come within the meaning of evidence and when the original was not proved, the printout like Call Details Record, was to be proved as per Section 65-B4 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
The Court stated that it was apparent that the prosecution case had crumbled like a house of card. Neither the circumstances were proved which could lead to a conclusion that the accused was complicit in offence, nor any consistent prosecution version had come which could be relied upon. The Court further stated that there was no evidence of last seen and this was how a crime of a most gruesome nature was investigated.
The Court stated that the prosecution had proposed that the accused was in the village on the night of evidence, but neither any oral nor electronic evidence was being led in support of it. An evening before the incidence, the informant had received a call from the deceased that she was abused, assaulted and threatened by ‘X’, but surprisingly the charge sheet was not submitted against her. There was evidence of past marital discord, but there was no evidence that the accused had extended life threat to the deceased. The Court stated that it was surprising how on these contradictory versions and sketchy evidence, the Trial court convicted the accused and awarded death sentence.
The Court relied on Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P., (2021) 13 SCC 716, wherein it was held that there was a duty cast on the trial courts to exercise greater degree of scrutiny care and circumspection while awarding death sentence. Further, the Court also relied on Mina Lalita Baruwa v. State of Orissa, (2013) 16 SCC 173, wherein it was held that the court could not remain a moot spectator but should be alive and alter during criminal trial. Even if prosecution omits inadvertently or deliberately, to bring on record all relevant materials, courts on its own stop prosecution and seek clarification.
Thus, considering the manner in which the investigation, prosecution and trial was conducted, the Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused and allowed the criminal appeal.
[Anand Kumar Dangi v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 3343, decided on 19-09-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Suvendu Jaipuriar, Advocate; Sunil Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate; Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate.
For the State: Pankaj Kumar, P.P.; Sharda Kumari, A.C. to P.P.
1. Corresponding Section 103(1) of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
2. Corresponding Section 3(5) of BNS
3. Corresponding Section 91 of BNS
4. Corresponding Section 63 of Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
