AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shree Chandrashekhar, J
Affidavit dated 10.07.2019 sworn by the Officer-in-Charge R.I.T. Police Station, Seraikella-Kharsawan is tendered in the court.
Taken on record
Sri. Vijay Kumar Gupta, the learned APP states that during pendency of this criminal appeal appellant no. 1, namely, Nandu Mukhi has passed away.
There is no application filed on behalf of the legal heirs and successors of the appellant no. 1, namely, Nandu Mukhi for their substitution in his place and, accordingly, this criminal appeal qua appellant no. 1, namely, Nandu Mukhi has abated.
Four persons, namely, Sapna Mukhi, Nandu Mukhi, Shyama Mukhi and Meena Devi faced the trial in S.T. No. 405 of 1999 on the charge of causing death of deceased Lakhinder Mahato. They have been convicted for the offence under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under section 302/34 IPC.
The accused Sapna Mukhi was acquitted of the charge framed against her under section 302/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC. The remaining above-named three persons have challenged the judgment of conviction under section 302/34 and the order of sentence of R.I. for life passed in S.T. Case No. 405 of 1999.
In his fardbeyan, the informant Ghasi Ram Mahato , father of the deceased Lakhinder Mahato, which was recorded at 4.30 p.m. on 11.10.1999, has stated that in the morning at about 10.30 a.m. he received an information from his younger son, namely, Debendra Mahato that dead body of Lakhinder has been found in the house of the accused Nandu Mukhi. The informant has stated that he is employed as Sweeper in R.I.T. Jamshedpur and the accused Nandu Mukhi is also a co-employee and their houses in the colony are adjacent to each other. The informant has further stated that Lakhinder Mahato was in love with Rusna Mukhi @ Sapna Mukhi, daughter of accused Nandu Mukhi and that was the reason the accused persons have killed his son.
On the basis of the fardbeyan of Ghasi Ram Mahato, Adityapur (RIT) P.S. Case No. 149 of 1999 was registered against Sapna Mukhi, Nandu Mukhi, Shyama Mukhi and Meena Devi under sections 302,201/34 IPC.
During the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses; the informant is P.W. 4 and his younger son, namely, Debendra Mahato is P.W. 1. Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W. 8 and Dr. A.K. Choudhary who had conducted autopsy is P.W. 2.
Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the actual occurrence of death of Lakhinder Mahato. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed on death of Lakhinder Mahato, and love affair between Lakhinder Mahato and Sapna Mukhi. The informant and P.W. 3 have stated that the dead body of Lakhinder Mahato was found on a bed ( Palang) in the house of the accused Nandu Mukhi and Sapna Mukhi was seen standing by the side of the bed. On inquiry, the accused Sapna Mukhi did not say anything and continued to weep. The younger son of the informant, namely, Devendra Mahato-P.W. 1 has stated that Sapna Mukhi and her mother informed him that dead- body of his brother was lying in the bath-room of their house. The doctor has found ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. The informant says that he had taken the dead-body of his son to a local doctor but this doctor has not been examined. And, no other external injury or sign of struggle by the deceased has been found on his dead-body.
The law on the circumstantial evidence is well-settled . In "Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P." reported in AIR 1952 SC 343, the Supreme Court has observed thus;
"It is well to remember 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. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P." reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, has laid down the following test which the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence must satisfy;
(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilty is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and non else; and
(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
After examining the evidences laid during the trial of S.T. No. 405 of 1999, we find that there is no evidence led by the prosecution that the deceased Lakhinder Mahato was seen alive lastly in the house of the appellant in the company of the accused persons and there is no evidence laid by the prosecution which would conclusively establish that in the fateful night the appellants, namely, Meena Mukhi and Syama Mukhi were present in their house and they have caused murder of Lakhinder Mahato in the night of 10.10.1999 in their house. This has also not come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that previously the accused persons had threatened either the informant or his deceased son. And, on the same set of evidence Sapna Mukhi has not been found guilty by the learned judge on the ground that no circumstance has been shown on her complicity in the crime. Sri A.K. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel has contended that inquest on the dead body was prepared at Qr. No. F-4, which is the house of the informant and not of the accused Nandu Mukhi and while so, the prosecution has failed to conclusively establish that the dead body of Lakhinder was recovered from house of the accused Nandu Mahato. The charge under sections 201/34 IPC has failed and, as noticed above, the accused Sapna Mukhi has been acquitted of the charge framed against her.
Having examined the materials on record in the above state of affairs, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge under section 302/34 IPC against the surviving appellants, namely, Syama Mukhi and Meena Mukhi.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2001 and order of sentence dated 29.06.2001 passed against these two appellants in S.T. Case No. 405 of 1999 under sections 302/34 IPC are set aside. The appellants, namely, Syama Mukhi and Meena Mukhi are acquitted of the charge under sections 302/34 IPC framed against them in S.T. No. 405 of 1999.
The appellants, namely, Syama Mukhi and Meena Mukhi are discharged from the liability of bail bonds furnished by them.
In the result, this criminal appeal qua appellant no. 2, namely Meena Mukhi and qua appellant no. 3, namely, Syama Mukhi is allowed.
Let the lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.