The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that it is well-settled law that while returning judgment of conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the chain should be complete which should not admit to any inference, other than the guilt of the accused on the offense.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased was reading at his home and Vikash Kumar Singh and Ajit Kumar Jha came on a scooter to his house. They called him and took him with them on the scooter, although at that time his son was not willing to go with them as he was wearing only half pant and pink sweater. Later on, when he didn't arrive home, they became anxious, and in the morning, they received information that a dead body was found of his son. The case was registered under Sections 364, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Vikash Kumar Singh @ Munna, Ajit Kumar Jha. The trial court convicted Ajit Kumar Jha under Section 364 of the IPC and was acquitted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The co-accused Arvind Kumar Singh was held not guilty and acquitted of all the charges. Aggrieved by this, the Appellant preferred this present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that there exists no eye witness to the case. It was furthermore contended that none of the witnesses stated that the deceased had been seen being taken by the appellant-accused on the scooter in this area. Also, Section 364 of Indian Penal Code has two limbs that of kidnapping or abduction in order to commit murder. In the instant case, the deceased was major aged about 20 years and, therefore, the offence of kidnapping will not be made out. As far as abduction is concerned, unless there is some evidence to show that force was used or any deceitful means was employed, the said abduction cannot be proved. The Appellant relied upon the judgments titled Badshah & Others Versus State of U.P, Sucha Singh Versus State of Punjab, and State of West Bengal Versus Mir Mohammad Omar & Others.
Contentions of the State
The State contended that the deceased was taken by the Appellant and co-accused on the scooter and the dead body of the deceased was recovered in the morning. It was furthermore contended that the deceased was taken by deceitful means.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the contradiction is that when the informant went outside after hearing a scooter's sound, his wife followed him to the gate, where the deceased had a conversation with Ajit Kumar Jha and Vikash Kumar Singh. Additionally, it has been argued that Rakesh @ Pintu was reluctant to accompany the accused individuals despite their desire to take him.
It was furthermore observed that the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence of last seen.
The court noted that it is well settled that when determining whether to condemn someone based solely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and should only accept that the accused is guilty of the offense.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the last seen creates reasonable doubt regarding the complicity of the appellant in the offense and he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court set aside the judgment of conviction.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case title: Vikash Kumar Singh @ Bikash Kumar Singh V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 926 of 2012
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Naveen Kumar Gaunjhu, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
