Sanatan Rana and Maharani Rana vs The State of Jharkhand

There are two Appellants in this appeal. Appellant No. 2 is the wife of Appellant No. 1.

The Appellants have been convicted u/s 302/34 I.P.C. for murder of Malay Kant Biswas by the judgment dated 20.03.2004 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge( F.T.C.), Dumka and sentenced to life imprisonment without the mandatory fine.

We have heard learned Amicus Curaie and the learned Counsel for the State. The F.I.R.( fard beyan, Ext.4) was lodged at 8.30 hours on 22.05.2002 by Bimal Kant Biswas, father of the deceased.

According to the F.I.R. there was a case pending between the accused and the deceased in Court. The Appellant No. 2 came to the house of the informant in village Kalikandar at about 5 p.m. on 21.05.2002 and asked the deceased to accompany her to her village Khairbani for compromising the matter. The deceased did not return in the night. In the morning, the informant was informed by his younger brother Shyamal Kant Biswas that the two accused-Appellants had tied the deceased to a tree in front of of their house and had killed him by assaulting him with lathi, danda and tangi ( sharp edged weapon). Thereupon, the informant went to the village Khairbani where he found the dead-body of the deceased lying under the tree in front of the house of the Appellants. On inquiry, the informant came to know that the deceased had been murdered at about 10.30 p.m. on 21.05.2002 in the manner narrated above. According to the F.I.R. this offence was committed because of enmity.

There are no eye witness and the case is based on circumstantial evidence.

The person who gave the initial information to the informant about the murder ,namely, Shyamal Kant Biswas, who was younger brother of the informant has not been produced as a witness. The informant has been examined as P.W.14. In paragraph 2 of his cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased had gone with the Appellant No. 2 alone. He has specifically stated that despite enmity no one accompanied the deceased when he went with the Appellant No. 2. Prima facie this conduct indicates that when the deceased was going alone with Appellant No. 2, it was not apprehended by the deceased or his family members that he would be done to death. It would mean prima facie that the enmity between the parties was not serious enough to cause such an apprehension and, therefore, deceased was allowed to go alone to a different village.

It is trite that the witnesses may lie to the circumstances done. Therefore, this conduct of the deceased and his family members prima facie suggests that enmity was not serious enough to result in any kind of assault upon the solitary deceased by the two accused.

Other strong circumstance which has been relied upon by the trial court for recording conviction is alleged recovery of the blood stained stick, tangi and nylon-rope from the house of the accused-Appellants. This recovery from inside the house is doubtful in view of the fact that in paragraph 3 of his cross-examination, the informant has stated that deceased was found tied to a tree with jute-rope and the lathi, danda and tangi were found lying there under the tree. If these assaulting weapons were lying under the tree, there could have no question of their recovery from inside the house. Further when the deceased was found tied to the tree with jute-rope, nylon-rope which is said to have been recovered from inside the house of the accused it looses its relevancy. No jute-rope has been recovered by the police. In the same paragraph of his cross-examination, the informant has stated that the clothes of the deceased were not blood-stained and he cannot say whether lathi,danda and tangi had blood-stained or not. The informant does not say that he entered inside the house of the accused and, therefore, if assaulting weapons had been in side the house he could have seen the same as stated in his deposition.

Lack of blood-stained on the clothes becomes relevant when seen along-with the statement of P.W.10, who is mother of the deceased to whom a suggestion was given although denied that the deceased was of romantic temperament and had been murdered somewhere else and the dead-body thrown at the place where it was found.

Again the informant has stated in his F.I.R. that when he reached the place of occurrence he found the dead-body lying on the ground but in his deposition he says as P.W.14 that he found the dead-body tied to the tree. Although this is minor discrepancy but the fact remains that this being a case of circumstantial evidence, we have to say whether the chain of circumstances is complete. The circumstances brought out are that there was some enmity which was not serious enough to cause any apprehension in the mind of the deceased or his family members. Thus motive is weak. Recovery has already been disbelieved above and, therefore, other circumstances is that the dead-body was found outside the house of the accused-Appellants.

Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the accused tried to ran away when they saw the police. This circumstance would also be explained by the father of the deceased in the circumstance where dead-body has been found outside the house of the accused.

In the case of Anil Kumar Singh. v. State of Bihar, reported in 2004 SCC 1167, the Supreme Court has laid down as follows:

It is well settled that in order to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, each and every piece of incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than the one of guilt of the accused and the circumstances cannot be explained on any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The court has to be cautious and avoid the risk of allowing mere suspicion, howsoever strong, to take the place of proof. A mere moral conviction or a suspicion howsoever grave it may be cannot take the place of proof.

The trial court in its impugned judgment has already disbelieved the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused-Appellant No. 2. Therefore, the initial information with a weak motive pointed out above and the mere circumstance that the dead-body having been found in front of the house of the Appellants are not the circumstances which form complete chain of events and thus it cannot be allowed to arrive at one and only conclusion namely, guilt of the accused which are inconsistent with other conclusion.

In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and acquit both the accused-Appellants of the charges. Since the accused-Appellants are in jail, their bail having been denied during the pendency of this appeal, they shall be set at liberty forthwith unless their detention is required in some other matters.