The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that in case of circumstantial evidence, the examination of the Investigating Officer becomes very important. More so, the evidence, which has been collected by the former Investigating Officer has not been proved by the 2nd Investigating Officer, as such, the same becomes fatal to the prosecution case. The court set aside the murder conviction against the accused.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant alleged that his daughter married Jumed Khan 20-21 years ago. After marriage, he started to torture her and then, she filed a case in the Court of Giridih. After that, because of this, the accused assaulted her and committed murder, and threw her dead body near the bush in order to screen themselves. Furthermore, the FIR was registered under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the appellant and the present criminal appeal is filed in order to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that the case is based only upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no link in the chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant. It was furthermore contended that the investigation officer was also not examined.
Contentions of the State
The State contended that the motive of the incident was shown in the FIR and the same was also corroborated by the evidence produced by the prosecution. It was furthermore contended that the judgment rendered by the trial court requires no interference.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that although the prosecution has established the motive for the incident and the homicidal death of the informant's daughter, who was discovered in a bush close to the appellant's home, has also been established, there is no proof linking the informant's daughter's murder to the appellant-convict.
It was furthermore observed that except the evidence of motive, there is no other circumstantial evidence against the appellant to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence. Also, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence.
The court noted that the investigating officer's examination becomes crucial when there is circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, the evidence gathered by the former investigating officer has not been proved by the second investigating officer; hence, it becomes fatal to the prosecution case.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, Indrajit Das Vs. The State of Tripura, Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala Vs. State of Gujarat, and State through C. B.I. Vs, Mahender Singh Dahiya.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the judgment of the trial court is on conjectures and surmises and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court being not based on any cogent evidence is found perverse, accordingly, the same needs interference.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case title: Jumed Khan Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chand
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (DB) No.344 of 2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
