In a murder trial, the Learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution case and recorded a judgment of acquittal inter alia on the ground that as admittedly the door of the kitchen had to be broken open; and as the death of Bimlabai presumably took place in between 4.15 p.m. and 5.30 p.m., it was impossible for the assassin to jump from the window in the lane. Furthermore, as no person has seen the assassin, possibly it was a case of suicide. Assuming that it was a case of murder, the learned Sessions Judge wondered, keeping in view the place of occurrence vis-‘-vis the points of possible entries thereto, as to how the assassin of Bimla made his exodus from that room.
The State preferred an appeal thereagainst. Appellant No. 1 to be guilty for commission of an offence under Section 302 read with 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant No. 2 to be guilty for commission of an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment............
The matter reached the Supreme Court in the case titled as Narendra Singh & Anr. vs State of M.P. By a decision dated 12.04.2004, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and acquitted the accused.
The Supreme Court observed and held as under:
"The High Court, therefore, considered the escape of the assassin of Bimlabai through one of the two gaps as possible but did not assign any reason as to how the same can be said to have been established.
Furthermore, it does not appear that such a case was made out by the prosecution. Investigation in this behalf does not appear to have been carried out to show as to whether it was possible for a person to climb the wall before slipping out of one of the two places mentioned by the High Court nor any material in support thereof was brought on record.
The witnesses did not say that they had seen any foot mark of any person on the wall nor any other evidence suggests that one of the two open places would otherwise be used by the offender as possible escape routes. If the time of incident is taken to be nearer 5 p.m. than 3.30 p.m., it would be well nigh possible for the appellant No. 1 to climb the wall, sneak through the open places and jump from the window to the lane without being noticed.
It also does not appear that the attention of the appellants had been drawn by the Sessions Judge to any piece of evidence seeking their explanation thereabout in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Had it been the prosecution case that the appellant No. 1 after throttling the deceased and setting her on fire escaped through one of the two open places mentioned by the High Court, it was obligatory on the part of the Court to give an opportunity to the appellants to explain thereabout.
Such a circumstance, had it been put to the appellant no.1, could have been explained away by him. The appellants were, therefore, prejudiced by not being given a chance to explain the said purported material against him. It is not a case where no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellants.
The findings of the learned Sessions Judge to the effect that had any person slipped or gone away from that window, pedestrians through the lanes must have seen such person cannot, in our opinion, be said to be irrational warranting interference by the High Court.
If the observations of the High Court to the effect that persons going through the road do not keep a vigil on such movements, is correct, the same by would itself give rise to some surmises keeping in view the fact that there existed a greater possibility of the appellant no.1 being seen as his jumping from the window would have been abnormal which would attract the attention of the persons who had assembled to take water from the tap.
We also fail to see any force in the finding of the High Court to the effect that only because the appellant no.1 was the husband of the deceased he had a chance to throttle her all of a sudden without any resistance. The finding of the High Court to the effect that Gulbadanbai having sustained burn injuries in her hand, the probability of her presence at this time of setting of fire cannot be ruled out is contradictory to its ultimate finding that she was guilty of offence only under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302/34 thereof".
This case has one more interesting feature. The daily order passed on the same day i.e. 12.04.2004 shows that the case was disposed of by three judges bench whereas the judgment shows that it was only by two judges.
Read the Judgment here:
Picture Source :