AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(A. Muhamed Mustaque, C.J.)
The State, in this Appeal questions the Judgment of the Sessions Court, Namchi, Sikkim, acquitting the accused persons who were tried for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
An FIR was registered on 19.01.2020 at Jorethang Police Station on information provided by the brother of the deceased Dhan Kumar Rai, namely Chandra Kumar Rai (PW-8) alleging that on 17.01.2020, Friday, Dhan Kumar Rai had a quarrel with his wife Pratiksha Rai. Both were allegedly abusing each other under the influence of alcohol. During the quarrel, Pratiksha Rai assaulted her husband on the head with a piece of firewood. At that time, her brother Aita Raj Rai joined his sister in assaulting the deceased. Both accused persons allegedly jointly assaulted Dhan Kumar Rai with firewood, causing serious injuries. Thereafter in the hospital on the morning of 19.01.2020 while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the assault. It is important to note that the informant, brother of the deceased, had not witnessed any incident resulting in the death of the deceased.
The Learned Trial Court found that there is no evidence on record to convict the accused persons. Primarily, the Learned Trial Court noted that there were no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and also particularly noted that there is also no conclusive evidence to establish that the deceased died due to any act attributable to the accused persons.
It is appropriate to narrate the incident leading to the Prosecution case. PW-9 witnessed an incident involving an altercation between the deceased and the Respondent-Accused. This was on 17.01.2020 in the evening. PW-9 deposed that he saw the accused no. 1 assaulting the deceased on his knees with a piece of firewood. It is stated by him that both the deceased and accused no. 1 were in an inebriated stage. PW-9 further deposed that he, along with Harka Man Rai and Dal Bahadur Thapa, took the deceased inside the house and put him on his bed. He further deposed that he received a phone call the next morning from the son-in-law of the deceased informing him that the deceased was found lying in a serious condition on his bed. Thereafter, PW-9, along with co-villagers, took the deceased to the District Hospital, Namchi. As the facts unfolded, the deceased was thereafter referred to the STNM Hospital, Gangtok. While undergoing treatment at the STNM Hospital, the deceased succumbed to his injuries.
It is significant however, that none of the Doctors who examined the deceased at the Namchi District Hospital or the STNM Hospital were examined by the Prosecution. These doctors would have been in a better position to disclose the medical condition of the deceased when he was initially examined, the nature of the injuries noticed at that stage and whether the deceased was conscious when he was brought to the Hospitals. The absence of this evidence assumes significance in determining whether the injuries subsequently noticed during the inquest and post mortem were attributable to the alleged act of the accused persons.
In the Inquest Form, following injuries were noted:-
The cause of death mentioned in the Medicolegal Autopsy Report of the STNM Hospital is asphyxia as a result of massive intracranial haemorrhage.
The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem, in cross-examination, stated that these injuries can also be caused due to a fall or by accident. It is important to note that these injuries were recorded during the inquest conducted by the Investigating Officer. There is no evidence on record to establish that the above cited injuries existed while he was taken to Namchi Hospital initially. There is also no record of head injury being present when the deceased was initially taken to the Hospital. None of the witnesses deposed, having noticed an injury on his head.
The Driver (PW-5) who transported the deceased to the Hospital, deposed in cross-examination that he did not see any injuries sustained by the deceased. However, in his examination-in-chief, he stated that he had been asked to evacuate the deceased after being informed that the deceased was seriously injured. Thereafter, PW-2, the nephew of the deceased also deposed that he saw his uncle in a serious condition on his bed, but did not depose that he had noticed any injury on the head of the deceased.
On evaluating the evidence as above, it appears that none of the witnesses had noticed or deposed about any visible injury on the head of the deceased at the time when he was taken to the hospital.
In view of the aforesaid evidence, the precise circumstances in which the fatal head injury was sustained remain uncertain. The medical evidence establishes the cause of the death, but does not, by itself, establish that the injury resulting in the intracranial haemorrhage was caused by the accused persons.
We shall, therefore, examine the case on three aspects: first, the cause of death and whether the medical evidence establishes a nexus between the fatal injury and the alleged acts of the accused; second, the case in the absence of direct evidence and the applicability of the principles governing circumstantial evidence; and third, whether the incident witnessed by PW-9 on 17.01.2020 forms part of the transaction resulting in the death of the deceased.
Cause of Death and Medical Evidence
We shall first consider the cause of death. None of the witnesses had witnessed any injury being caused to the head of the deceased. Whether the deceased was conscious or not when he was initially taken to the Hospital is also not established from the evidence. This could have been elicited by examining the Doctors who initially treated the deceased at the Namchi District Hospital and thereafter at the STNM Hospital, Gangtok. The question, therefore, is as to how far the medical evidence can be relied upon to establish the cause of death and, more importantly, to connect the fatal injury with the alleged acts of the accused so as to constitute an offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
The Doctor (PW-7), who conducted the autopsy, found the following:-
The Doctor (PW-7) finally opined the cause of death as follows:_
The medical evidence, therefore, establishes that the deceased died due to massive intracranial haemorrhage. However, the Doctor, in cross-examination, categorically testified that the injuries noted in the post-mortem report and the resultant cause of death could have been caused by a fall from a height on a rough surface. It is, therefore, possible that the injuries could have been sustained by a fall, including a fall from the bed, particularly in view of the evidence regarding the intoxicated condition of the deceased. The possibility of an accidental fall cannot, in the circumstances, be completely ruled out.
There cannot be much doubt that accused no.1, being the wife of the deceased, was present in the house and would ordinarily be in a better position to explain what transpired. However, such circumstance by itself cannot relieve the Prosecution of its primary burden of establishing that the deceased died as a result of an injury caused by the accused persons. The Prosecution was required to establish a clear nexus between the alleged assault and the fatal head injury. In the absence of such evidence, the chain of circumstances remains incomplete.
Circumstantial Evidence
We shall now consider the second aspect. There is no direct evidence connecting the accused persons with the fatal injury. The law on circumstantial evidence is well settled. Mere presence of the accused persons at the place where the deceased was subsequently found injured cannot, by itself, establish their guilt. The circumstances relied upon by the Prosecution must form a complete chain and must point unerringly towards the guilt of the accused, excluding every reasonable hypothesis consistent with their innocence.
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 153, laid down the five golden principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established; they must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused; they must be conclusive in nature; they must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved; and the chain of evidence must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Thereafter the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mujeeb and Another v. State of Kerala2 stated that for the Circumstantial Evidence the requirement is that the chain be complete and consistent only with guilt. Where a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, every link in that chain must be proved, and together the circumstances must exclude any conclusion other than the accused's guilt. In Abdul Nazar v. State of Kerala3 it was observed that the cause of death must be certain to give rise to a presumption of guilt by circumstances. If the cause of death is uncertain, no amount of circumstantial evidence would be complete to find the guilt of the accused for an offence.
In the present case, the medical evidence does not conclusively establish that the fatal head injury was caused by a wooden log or any other hard object wielded by the accused persons. The other evidence or the statements of the witnesses also does not establish that the injury was sustained during the assault. Consequently, the medical evidence does not provide the necessary link between the presence of the accused persons and the death of the deceased.
Incident Witnessed and Cognate Offence
We shall now consider the third aspect. The incident witnessed by PW-9 occurred on 17.01.2020 in the evening. PW-9 deposed that he saw accused no.1 assaulting the deceased on his knees with a piece of firewood in the presence of accused no. 2. The question, however, is whether this assault formed part of the transaction which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased.
The Prosecution has failed to establish that the incident witnessed by PW-9 was a continuation of, or had any connection with, the subsequent circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. The evidence on record does not establish that the assault on the knees caused, contributed to, or was otherwise connected with the fatal head injury. The two incidents, therefore, cannot safely be treated as forming part of the same transaction.
Although there is evidence that the deceased was assaulted on his knees on 17.01.2020, the accused persons cannot be convicted for that assault in the present proceedings when no separate charge in respect thereof was framed. If the said assault had been established as forming part of the same transaction leading to the death, the question of applying the principle relating to cognate offences and considering an offence under Section 323 of the IPC could perhaps have arisen. However, in the present case, there is no sufficient evidence to establish such a connection.
The death of the deceased is attributable to the injury sustained; however, the Prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the said injury was caused by the accused persons. The essential nexus between the alleged acts of the accused and the fatal injury has not been established.
For the aforesaid reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Learned Trial Court acquitting the accused persons. The view taken by the Learned Trial Court is a reasonable view on the evidence available on record, and we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the order of acquittal.
Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed.
Records of the Learned Trial Court, if any, be remitted forthwith along with this Judgment.