The High Court of Jharkhand upheld the acquittal of the respondents, accused under Section 302 of the IPC held that the prosecution has laid circumstantial evidence which do not complete the chain of circumstances and there are many missing links and gaping notes in the prosecution case and the evidence on last seen together alone is not sufficient to establish that the accused was the person who committed murder of the victim and the last seen together is a piece of evidence which is just a link in the chain of circumstances.
Brief Facts:
The state filed the present acquittal appeal under sub-section (1) to section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge where the respondents, accused under sections 302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code were acquitted by the court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that it was incumbent upon the respondents to explain to the Court what happened next after the deceased was seen in their company.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that even the story of last seen together is not established by the prosecution and further referred to the findings recorded by the trial court in furtherance of his arguments.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the testimonies of witnesses and stated that nothing about the deceased found in the company of respondents has been mentioned and stated that in a criminal trial, the evidence on last seen together is considered highly incriminating material against the accused and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be of definite character and all the circumstances put together must establish that it was the accused who is responsible for the crime and there is no doubt that in the process of examining a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court is required to eliminate all possibilities regarding a hypothesis about the innocence of the accused.
The court referred to the judgment in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. wherein it was held that in case where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
The court stated that the law requires the accused in whose company the deceased was last found alive to say something in the Court about what actually happened after the victim was seen last in his company, however, the evidence on last seen together alone is not sufficient to establish that the accused was the person who committed the murder of the victim and the last seen together is a piece of evidence which is just a link in the chain of circumstances and the prosecution is therefore required to produce some other incriminating circumstance which examined together with the last seen evidence would establish the culpability of the accused and there is no other incriminating material produced by the prosecution during the trial in the Sessions Court.
The court observed that considering the number of injuries caused to the deceased, it can be reasonably assumed that the scuffle between the deceased and the assailants must have taken some time, if at all that happened, however in a thickly populated village and that too where marriage celebrations were going on no one saw the respondents assaulting the deceased and the prosecution has laid circumstantial evidences which do not complete the chain of circumstances and there are many missing links and gaping notes in the prosecution case.
The decision of the Court:
The court found the appeal devoid of any merit and dismissed it.
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand vs Bikaram Mandal and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Aubha Rawat Choudhary
Case No.: Acquittal Appeal No. 29 of 2008
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Ms Neha Bhardwaj and Mr. Piyush Kumar Roy
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Yogesh Modi, Mr Mahesh Tewari and Mr. Ankur Anand
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
