Manohar vs State of M.P.

Appellant/accused has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 26.07.1995 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Murwara, Katni in

Sessions Trial No.40/95 whereby the trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 404 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for two years, respectively.

Prosecution case in brief is that on 22.11.1994 in the morning Subatiyabai (since deceased) resident of village Malhan had gone for grazing the

goats, but she did not return to her home. Her dead body was found behind the culvert (nala). On the intimation of Baijnath (PW-1) father-in-law

of the deceased, a marg-report was registered at Police Station Badwara. During investigation, on the memorandum of appellant and co-accused

Guddi @ Gulab Bai wife of the appellant, it was found that the appellant caused death of deceased and took away her ornaments, which were

recovered by the police from the possession of appellant. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against the appellant and his wife Guddi @ Gulab Bai

under Sections 302/201 and 404/34 of the I.P.C.

After committal of the case, charges under Section 302/34 in alternate under Sections 302, 404 and 201 of the I.P.C. has been framed by the

learned Trial Court against the appellant. Appellant abjured guilt and stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case.

On the basis of the circumstantial evidence, learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty for committing offence under Sections 302 and 404 of

the IPC. Aforesaid charges have not been proved against his wife Guddi @ Gulab Bai, therefore, she was acquitted from the above charges.

Appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and sentence on the grounds that the trial Court wrongly relied upon the prosecution evidence

and erred in law while convicting the appellant. Hence, the appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and he be acquitted from the

charges levelled against him.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant on the grounds

that the trial Court properly considered the entire circumstantial evidence which connects the appellant with the crime. Hence, appellant was rightly

convicted the appellant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

We are in agreement with the findings of learned trial Court that the deceased was murdered.

As per the testimony of Dr. R. Siddha (PW-5), it is established that the deceased died due to fatal injuries on her neck and body, which were

caused by a sharp edged weapon.

From the evidence on record, it is apparent that the appellant and the deceased both were close relatives. The deceased and coaccused Guddi

@ Gulab Bai wife of appellant both were cousin sisters. Baijnath (PW-1) father-in-law of the deceased also stated that they had cordial

relationship. It is also clear that there is no enmity between the appellant and family of the deceased. There is no direct evidence against the

appellant.

Learned trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of seized articles which belonged to the deceased but Baijnath (PW-1) father-in-

law of the deceased has not stated that any jewellery of the deceased was missing. Ramesh Kumar (PW-3) also stated that at the time of the

preparation of memo (Ex.P/14), husband of the deceased was not present there and Baijnath (PW-1) has not stated about the missing jewellery of

the deceased.

After some days, Baijnath (PW-1) heard about missing of jewellery of the deceased. In this regard, sole testimony of the Investigating Officer

is available on the record, who deposed that on the memorandum (Ex.P/22) of co-accused Guddi @ Gulab Bai and the memorandum (Ex.P/24)

of the appellant, he recovered a pair of silver chhanni, gilat kardhani and a pair of slipper which belonged to the deceased. But panch witnesses,

Panda (PW-7) and Sukhchain (PW-10) did not corroborate the testimony of the Investigating Officer.

Sukhchain (PW-10) is a hearsay witness. He heard about the seizure from the Police Inspector. He stated that such articles were not

recovered before him. Seizure of the articles belongs to the deceased is only link which connect the appellant with the crime but this fact has not

been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of the learned trial Court against the appellant and conviction is based

on the circumstantial evidence.

In case of Niranjan Rout vs. State of Orissa (2016) SCC Online Ori 963, the Supreme Court has held that :-

In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (supra), it has been made clear by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that following conditions

must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence:-

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ''may be'' fully established,

(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.

From a scanning of evidence, it is clear that most of the links are missing here to complete the chain of evidence. With regard to Section 498 A

read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act, a scanning of evidence of P.W.7, however, show that there exists enough material to convict the appellant

under Section 498 A IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act.

[See also Anthony D'' Souza and others v. State of Karnataka (supra) and Matru @ Girish Chandra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in

1971 (2) SCC 75]

Aforesaid golden rules are prescribed for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Hence, it is essential for the prosecution to prove

every link of the circumstantial evidence to complete the chain which establish that only the accused is liable for committing murder of the

deceased.

In the present case, chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete. So many important links are missing. Therefore, we are of the considered

opinion that this is not a fit case to convict the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. After ignoring the principle of circumstantial

evidence, learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant for committing murder of the deceased.

Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside and the

appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for information and compliance alongwith its record.