The Patna High Court, while dismissing an appeal filed against the judgment/order passed by the Learned Trial Court vide which the accused was acquitted, held that in cases of circumstantial evidence, all the facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, that they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
Brief Facts:
A person named Rahul was asked by respondent No. 3 to come along with him to work as an electrician. The FIR was lodged by the grandfather of the deceased/Rahul, who was examined as P.W. 5. After Rahul left with respondent No. 3, he was not to be traced as his telephone was found to be switched off. Later, the respondents brought the dead body of Rahul. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges of murder vide judgment dated 16.09.2021, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, in Sessions Trial. The Trial Court found that there was no eyewitness to the occurrence and every accusation was based on conjectures and surmises. The prosecution has not even been able to prove that the marriage of the sister-in-law of respondent No. 4 was fixed with respondent No. 3, which was not to the liking of the bride to be.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the Trial Court rightly found that since the case is based on circumstantial evidence where every link in the chain of circumstance was necessary to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and that not having been done, there was no way in which the respondents could have been held guilty for the offense charged against them.
The Court observed that in cases of circumstantial evidence, all the facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, that they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. The Trial Court did not find the circumstance to be of any conclusive nature and tendency and the circumstances did not reflect that only the respondents had committed the crime. The chain of events remained unforged and, therefore, no reliance was put on such vague imagination of the prosecution witnesses.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the Trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents and no interference is required to be made with the judgment of acquittal.
Case Title: Fuleshwar Sah vs The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Justice Jitendra Kumar
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.45 of 2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Diwakar Singh
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Manish Kumar N and Mr. Akshansh Ankit
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
