High Court set aside murder convictions and sentences disparately imposed on six appellants, holding that circumstantial evidence was incomplete and no motive was assigned to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment of trial court set aside; appellants discharged from liabilities of bail bonds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.260 of 1995
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 290 of 1995
======================================================
Sanjay Singh son of Kamaldeo Singh, resident of village Bibipur, P.S. Paliganj, District Patna
... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 260 of 1995) For the Appellants : Mr. Sidhendra Nr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, APP (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 290 of 1995) For the Appellant : Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Dr. Mayanand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 24-06-2022
Both the appeals are being taken up together as they arise out of the same judgment and order, by which the appellants have been convicted.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.260 of 1995 dt.24-06-2022 2/12
No.37 of 1991 arising out of Paliganj P.S. case No.17 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 364 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and also rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 364 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.260 of 1995 dt.24-06-2022 3/12
deceased and interacted with him. Thereafter the deceased took some money from his mother and went along with them towards Paliganj on the same tempo. When the deceased did not return till late night, the informant went to the house of the above referred appellants in order to enquire regarding the whereabouts of the deceased. The informant found that the above referred appellants had also not returned till then. By then in the morning, the informant received information regarding a dead body lying in a paddy field near Kurkuri Bridge. He went there and identified the dead body as that of his nephew Arun Kumar Singh. There were stabbing injuries below the left eye and above right eye brow. There were injuries on his neck also. On the basis of the statement of the informant, the present was registered against the appellants in both the appeals.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.260 of 1995 dt.24-06-2022 4/12
Ram Kumar Singh (P.W.3), Kaushalya Devi (P.W.4), Vijay Singh (P.W.5), Ram Byash Singh (P.W.6), Dr. Radha Kant Choudhary (P.W.7), who conducted the postmortem of the deceased and Shekh Noor Mohammad (P.W.8), Investigating Officer of the case. The defence has not examined any witness in support of the case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.260 of 1995 dt.24-06-2022 5/12
(i) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove that the chain of circumstances is so complete that there is no other conclusion except for the fact that with all human probability the crime was committed by the appellants and none else?
(ii) Whether the absence of assigning any motive in the case of circumstantial evidence where the chain of circumstance is not complete, would weigh in favour of the accused?
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.260 of 1995 dt.24-06-2022 6/12
found in the paddy field near a Bridge. These facts even if taken cumulatively do not complete the chain of circumstances. There are many links in the chain which are missing. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellants were seen near the dead body of the deceased or any incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellants. Therefore, the only fact that the appellants were last seen with the deceased cannot lead us to an undoubted conclusion that it was the appellants, who have committed murder of the deceased. Apart from being last seen with the deceased, there is no iota of evidence to link the appellants with the commission of the offence. It is a case where circumstantial evidence available on record are not sufficient enough to record a conviction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan [(2002) 1 SCC 702] has explained the theory of conviction on circumstantial evidence and the principles governing proving a guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Upon analyzing the case in the backdrop of the requirement of law, we find that the circumstances brought against the appellants are not sufficient enough to hold that the guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubts. That apart, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja @ Rajinder vs. State of Haryana [(2015) 11 SCC 43],Kiriti Pal vs. State of West Bengal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.260 of 1995 dt.24-06-2022 7/12
[(2015) 11 SCC 178] and Vijay Shankar vs. State of Haryana
[(2015) 12 SCC 644] , the principles for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the chain of link to be complete, have been delineated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 in the case of Raja @ Rajinder (supra), it has been crystallized in the following manner: -
“10. As the factual matrix would show, the case of the prosecution entirely hinges on circumstantial evidence. When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be satisfied that :
“(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) 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 none else; and
(4) 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.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.260 of 1995 dt.24-06-2022 8/12
[See Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706]
11. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 Supp (4) SCC 259] it has been laid down that :
“4. ......the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations, howsoever strong they may be, to take the place of proof.”
12. From the aforesaid it is clear as day that the court is required to evaluate the circumstantial evidence to see that the chain of events has been established clearly and completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. Needless to say whether the chain is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be attempted. [see
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.260 of 1995 dt.24-06-2022 9/12
Ujjagar Singh vs State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 90]”
vs. Raj Kumar [(2018) 2 SCC 69] the principle has again been crystallized in the following manner:-
“9. Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and that those circumstances must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Moreover, all the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.
10. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681], it was held as under:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.260 of 1995 dt.24-06-2022 10/12
“12. ...........The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that 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 they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”
The same principle was reiterated in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254, Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731, State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.260 of 1995 dt.24-06-2022 11/12
enough to hold the appellants guilty of the charges levelled against them. In view of the aforesaid, the prosecution has not been able to establish and prove a complete chain of circumstances which can lead to no other conclusion except for the fact that the appellants have committed murder of the deceased.
“12.…In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes pertinent significance as existence of the motive is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning in such a case. The absence of motive, however, puts the court on its guard to scrutinize the circumstances more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take place of legal proof.”
(emphasis supplied)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.260 of 1995 dt.24-06-2022 12/12
(Sudhir Singh, J)
( Chandra Prakash Singh, J)
Narendra/
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 06-07-2022 |
| Transmission Date | 06-07-2022 |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution has proved a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt on circumstantial evidence?
Whether the absence of an assigned motive weighs in favour of the accused in a case dependent on circumstantial evidence?
Whether the conviction recorded by the trial court on the basis of last-seen evidence alone is sustainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subhash Chandra vs. State of RajasthanExplained¶36
(2002) 1 SCC 702 · Who else cites this
Raja @ Rajinder vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶36
(2015) 11 SCC 43 · Who else cites this
Kiriti Pal vs. State of West BengalRelied on¶36
(2015) 11 SCC 178 · Who else cites this
Vijay Shankar vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶36
(2015) 12 SCC 644 · Who else cites this
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P.Referred¶46
1989 Supp (2) SCC 706 · Who else cites this
Balwinder Singh v. State of PunjabApplied¶47
[1995 Supp (4) SCC 259] · Who else cites this
Ujjagar Singh vs State of PunjabReferred¶49
(2007) 13 SCC 90 · Who else cites this
State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj KumarRelied on¶52
(2018) 2 SCC 69 · Who else cites this
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of MaharashtraApplied¶55
(2006) 10 SCC 681 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi RamReferred¶57
(2006) 12 SCC 254 · Who else cites this
Ganesh Lal v. State of RajasthanReferred¶57
(2002) 1 SCC 731 · Who else cites this
State of Maharashtra v. SureshReferred¶57
(2000) 1 SCC 471 · Who else cites this
State of Tamil Nadu v. RajendranReferred¶57
(1999) 8 SCC 679 · Who else cites this
Surinder Pal Jain vs. Delhi AdministrationRelied on¶62
AIR 1993 SC 1723 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Brahmdeo Singh
Bishundeo Singh
Sudama Singh
Munna Singh
Shailendra Singh
Sanjay Singh
Sudhir Singh
Chandra Prakash Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
