The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that in the case of a defective investigation, it would not be right to acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer and if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law-enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased is the daughter of Mundrika Choudhary, and her economic condition was not good, so the informant managed the marriage of Indrawati Devi (deceased). It was alleged by the informant that after marriage the accused persons started demanding a cycle and had assaulted her. At that time, she was pregnant. Later on, she gave birth to one child. Thereafter, the deceased came to the house of the informant and informed him that her husband and in-laws used to assault her and even tried to kill her. Then, the informant called her in-laws and told them that the mother of the deceased is a very poor widow and she can’t afford to give them a cycle. After that, the informant was sent to her sasural. It was furthermore alleged that the deceased called the informant and asked him to come to her sasural as the accused persons had assaulted her and even ready to kill her. Then, when she tried to escape, the accused persons committed her murder by pressing her neck and putting her on the ground of the room pouring kerosene oil, and then setting fire to her, as a result of which, she died. The charge sheet was filed against the accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC. The learned trial court convicted the appellants and the judgment of conviction is challenged by way of filing this appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that the present case is of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances which is the prerequisite to prove the guilt in the cases of circumstantial evidence. It was furthermore contended that as it was alleged by the prosecution that the demand of dowry was made and the same was not proved. Also, it was said that the calls were made, however, no details were brought on record in order to check the veracity of the alleged calls.
Contentions of the State
The state contended that the prosecution had fully proved the chain of circumstances. It was furthermore contended that nonfetching of the CDR may amount to a lapse in the investigation, however, there exists other strong evidence to support the case of the prosecution.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court relied upon the judgments titled Hanumant son of Govind Nargundlar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Bakhshish Singh vs. State of Punjab and laid down the conditions to be fulfilled against an accused in the case of circumstantial evidence and they are as follows
- The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
- The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, i.e., they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
- The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
- They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved,
- There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused
The court observed that in sections 101 to 105 of the Evidence Act, it is stipulated that the prosecution has the burden of proving the charge, and only if it can establish this beyond a reasonable doubt can a conviction be rendered. However, an exception has been made under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which states that the burden of proof will shift to the accused to refute the allegations.
It was furthermore observed that the investigating officer may have lapsed in duty if the CDR was not obtained, but this does not constitute a crucial omission as the prosecution's case is well-established by other persuasive evidence that is on record. Also, it is a well-established law that, in the event of a flawed investigation, an accused individual should not be acquitted based solely on the flaw; doing so would be tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer. Furthermore, if the public's confidence in the law enforcement agency and the administration of justice is undermined by a biased or careless investigation that leads to lapses or perfunctory examinations, then the public's trust in both would be severely damaged. The court relied upon the judgments titled Dhanaj Singh @ Shera & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, and Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,
The court noted that the statement made by the deceased prior to her death was a strong circumstance. Furthermore, the deceased's burn death occurred at her matrimonial home, and at the time of the incident, her mother-in-law and husband were found there. Neither of them made an attempt to save the deceased's life, and they were unable to notify the neighbours about the situation either. As a result, the conduct of accused persons indicates strong circumstances against them.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the chain of circumstances and the impugned order does not require any interference.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Gangeshwar Chaudhary Vs State Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (DB) No.589 of 2011
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ayush Kumar Verma, Advocate Ms. Alka Kumari, Advocate Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate
Advocates for the State: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
