The division judge bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of the Patna High Court in the case of Raushan Singh vs. the State of Bihar held that no one can be held guilty of committing an offence unless such participation and allegation are proven up to the hilt by cogent evidence.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant was sleeping in her house and three accused persons came and were forced to open the door. When the informant opened the door, she saw three accused persons, namely Kamlesh, Raushan Singh, and Gautam Singh and it was alleged by the informant that While Gautam Singh held a pistol at her head, Raushan Singh covered her mouth with his hand. Her mother-in-law came from the room in response to the hulla raised by the informant. Gautam Singh then threatened to shoot her if she raised the alarm, so she did not object out of fear and remained silent. Then, the accused person dragged the informant to the field which was a distance from her house. Thereafter, the informant also alleged that Gautam and then Raushan Singh committed rape on her while Kamlesh was standing there armed with a pistol. The charge sheet was filed under Sections 376(2)(g)/34 of the I.P.C and the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the trial court's judgment was not sustainable in the eyes of the law. It was furthermore contended that the victim in her cross-examination admitted that she was unable to identify the accused persons due to the darkness and she was forced by the police officials to disclose the name of the accused persons. Also, PW1 and PW2 didn’t make any effort to save the victim while she was taken away from the home. It was furthermore submitted that suspicion can’t be the basis of the conviction of the accused.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the trial court's judgment requires no interference as the prosecution has proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was furthermore contended that prosecution witnesses remained consistent in their testimony.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble court observed that PW 1, who was the only male member in the house neither took any steps to inform the police nor raised any alarm while the accused persons were dragging the victim from the house. Such conduct of the PW 1 doesn’t seem to be normal and reliable.
It was furthermore observed that the victim admitted that there was darkness due to which she was unable to identify the accused persons. Therefore, it is quite evident that the name of the appellants was the tutored name.
It was noted that no compliance was made with section 53A of Cr.P.C. which created a huge gap in the chain of circumstances as compliance with the provision would result in bringing out a clear picture regarding their involvement in the alleged offence.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Rajendra Pralhadreo Wasnik versus State of Maharashtra, Krishna Kumar Mallick versus State of Haryana, Chotkau versus State of Uttar Pradesh, and Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad versus State of Maharashtra.
It was furthermore noted that no one can be found guilty of committing an offence unless their participation and the allegation are fully supported by substantial evidence. The prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt by demonstrating that the chain of evidence is irrefutably pointing to the accused's guilt and that no alternative explanation is conceivable.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the prosecution was unable to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: Raushan Singh Vs The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No.532 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :