Surendra Nath Soren vs State Of Jharkhand

Shree Chandrashekhar, J

The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction under section 302 and 201 IPC and the order of sentence of R.I for life, both dated

24.04.2010, in Sessions Trial No. 129 of 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV Dhanbad.

The appellant is the husband of the deceased lady namely, Surajmani Manjiyan. On 25.08.2006, the fateful day, he proceeded for his home with his

wife from his in-laws' place (sasural), however, in the evening at about 5 p.m his father informed the informant namely, Bodi Manjhi that his daughter

has not reached home. The informant has stated that thereafter he started search for his daughter and on 27.08.2006 dead body of his daughter was

found floating in the well of one Durjan Manjhi. The police was given information and on the basis of fardbeyan of Bodi Manjhi recorded by the Sub-

Inspector of Police at the house of Bodi Manjhi at about 13.30 hrs. on 27.08.2006, Baliapur P.S. Case No. 57 of 2006 was registered under section

302/201/120-B IPC against the accused-appellant.

During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 18 witnesses to prove the charge under section 302/201 IPC framed against the accused-

appellant vide order dated 31.05.2007. The informant has been examined as P.W.16 and Dr. Shailendra Kumar, who has conducted post-mortem

examination over the dead body of Surajmani Manjiyan is P.W.17. Two brothers of the deceased namely, Mantosh Murmu and Sujit Murmu were

examined as P.W.4 and P.W.5 respectively. The prosecution has also examined mother of the deceased as P.W.14. These witnesses have been

examined to prove the last-seen-together circumstance against the accused-appellant.

On the basis of the evidences laid before him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that it was the accused and none else

who has committed murder of Surajmani Manjiyan.

Two-fold submissions have been made by Mr. Arwind Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant; (i) only the last-seen-together evidence is not

sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances so as to establish guilt of an accused, and (ii) suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of the

legal evidence to convict the accused for the serious offence under section 302 IPC. To fortify his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant

has relied on decisions in “Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra†reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 and “State through C.B.I. Vs.

Mahender Singh Dahiyaâ€​ reported in AIR 2011 SC 1017.

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned APP has, however, submitted that the appellant-husband who started for his home with his wife has not

offered any plausible explanation in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C regarding what happened next after he was seen lastly in the company

of his wife, who has been found dead. The learned APP referring to the decision in “Dilip Mallick Vs. State of West Bengal†reported in (2017)

12 SCC 727 submitted that on the basis of the proved circumstance that the appellant was last seen in the company of his wife, his conviction under

section 302 IPC is proper and legal.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph no.17 of the judgment dated 24.04.2010 has taken note of the following circumstances, which

according to him proved the guilt of the appellant:

(i) Deceased was with the accused and both of them have proceeded for his matrimonial house on 25-8-06.

(ii) On 25-8-06 at evening hour informant has been informed that deceased has not been reached at her place though accused reached.

(iii) On 27-8-06 dead body of the deceased was found in a well.

(iv) In P.M report it reveals that deceased was strangulated by her Saree.

(v) P.M report also establishes that death was occurred at 48 hours before that establishes this fact that she was murdered on 25-8-06 and silence of

the accused with respect to his wife goes against him.

At the outset, we intend to record that after referring to the aforesaid five circumstances the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded his

conclusion in paragraph no.18 that in his opinion it was the accused and none else who has committed murder of the deceased.

The law on circumstantial evidence is by now well-settled. In a catena of judgments it has been held that in a case founded solely on circumstantial

evidence the prosecution must first establish the incriminating circumstances against an accused and thereafter it must be established that all the

circumstances taken together form a chain of circumstances which unerringly indicate towards the guilt of the accused and it rules out any hypothesis

of the innocence of the accused. Evidently, the manner in which the Additional Sessions Judge has arrived at a conclusion on the guilt of the appellant

is improper. A conclusion must be supported by the reasoning. This is the mandate under section 353 read with section 354 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale; conviction of an accused cannot be recorded only on the basis of hypothesis.

Long back, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the last-seen-together evidence is only an incriminating piece of evidence. There may be

various occasions when an accused has been seen in the company of the deceased. It has been held that if there is a long time-gap and no explanation

is offered by the prosecution when the dead body has been recovered hours after the accused was seen lastly in the company of the deceased, the

last-seen-together evidence loses it relevance. In the present case, it is the prosecution's case that the appellant started with his wife for home at

about 9 a.m on 25.08.2006 and the dead body has been recovered at about 12 noon on 27.08.2006. The informant and his family members have stated

that immediately after receiving information from the father of the appellant at about 5 p.m on 25.08.2006 they started reaching for Surajmani

Manjiyan and to that extent we are satisfied that the prosecution has explained the delay, but then there are two circumstances which create serious

doubt on complicity of the appellant in death of his wife. The first circumstance is that the dead body was found in the close proximity of the house of

the informant. It was the well of a neighbour namely, Durjan Manjhi who has been examined as P.W.2 where the dead body of the deceased has

been found floating on 27.08.2006. The other circumstance appears from the medical evidence produced during the trial of Sessions Trial No.129 of

2007. Dr. Shailendra Kumar- P.W.17 has found no external ante-mortem injury on the dead body. Cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of

strangulation by ligature. A sari was found tied around the neck of the deceased. The doctor has opined that the time elapsed after the death was 48 +

(-) 12 hours. Now, on the basis of the opinion of the doctor it can be safely concluded that Surajmani Manjiyan died in the morning of 25.08.2006 itself

and it is the prosecution's case that her dead body has been found right behind the house of her father. In our opinion, it is highly improbable that in the

broad day-light the appellant has killed his wife and thrown her dead body in the well right behind the house of his in-laws. It has also come in the

evidence that there are several houses around the house of the informant. This is not the evidence brought through the prosecution witnesses that the

appellant has given any false explanation, as was the case in “Dilip Mallick†(supra) and this also cannot be ignored that no external injury was

found on the dead body of Surajmani Manjiyan.

Now, coming back to the circumstances referred by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph no.17 of the judgment, we find that none

of the circumstances except the fact that on 25.08.2006 the appellant proceeded for his home with the deceased can be said to be an incriminating

circumstance. There is no allegation of torture or harrasment by the appellant except a bald statement given by the mother of the deceased. Neither

the father of the deceased nor his two brothers have spoken about torture or harassment of his wife by the appellant. The maternal uncle of the

deceased who has been examined as P.W.15 has admitted in his cross-examination that whatever he has stated in the court is hearsay and before he

received the news of the death of Surajmani Manjiyan he had no knowledge about any harassment to the girl by the appellant. In fact, the informant

and his other family members have also spoken that Surajmani was received well in his matrimonial home. It is also an admitted position that the

appellant has visited his in-laws place on different occasions and there was no demand of dowry or any allegation of harassment or torture made by

the prosecution witnesses, except mother of the victim.

Motive generally is not a deciding factor in a criminal trial, however, in a serious crime like murder particularly when the case is solely based on

the circumstantial evidence motive becomes relevant. In “Surinder Pal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration†reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 681, the

Supreme Court has observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence motive assumes pertinent significance as existence of the motive is an

enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning and absence of motive puts the court on its guard to scrutinise the circumstances more

carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take place of legal proof. In this case the prosecution has failed to disclose motive behind the

crime. True, the appellant has not given any explanation to the last-seen-together evidence brought by the prosecution, but then, in a case of this

nature in which the prosecution has failed to prove any other incriminating circumstance mere failure of the appellant's offering any explanation would

not complete the chain of circumstances so as to prove the guilt of the appellant.

In the above facts, having examined the records of Sessions Trial No.129 of 2007, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish a chain of

circumstances which would have established that it was the appellant and none else who has committed murder of Surajmani Manjiyan. Accordingly,

we hold that conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC is unsustainable.

In the result, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 491 of 2010 is allowed. The judgment of conviction under section 302 and 201 IPC and the order of sentence

of R.I. for life, both dated 24.04.2010 in Sessions Trial No. 129 of 2007 are set-aside.

The appellant-Surendra Nath Soren, if not wanted in connection to any other case, shall be released forthwith.

Let the lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.