CRA/864/1995 of SHOBHNATH Vs STATE on 23 December 2005

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered[on][ 23M][ December,][ 2005)]

The following iudament of the Court was delivered bu LC. Bhadoo, J:- .BythisappealaccusedShobhnathhasquestionedthelegality of judgment of conviction8,5 sentence dated1.6. 1995passedbylearnedSessionsJudge,AmbikapurDistrictSar‘gujainSessionsTrialNo.381/94wherebylearnedSessionsJudgeafterholdingtheaccusedguiltyforcommissionof murderofBilliyaBaiconvictedhimunderSection 302of the IndianPenal Code andsentenced himto'%undergo imprisonment for life.

.Theprosecutioncase,inbrief,isthatTenai,fatherofKumariBilliya,gave[merg][ intimation](EX.P~10)inthePoliceStationKusmi,DistrictSargujaon22.7.1994totheeffectthaton17.7.1994atabout9.00p.111.inthenightafter“takingdinnerKumari:«:\BilliyaalongwithhereldersisternamelyBudhni wentforsleepinaseparateroom,healsowentforsleepinhis room and his wife hadgoneto VillageBhawanipur.Atabout12.00in’themidnightBudhniinformedhimthatBilliyaisnotinthehouse,therefore,asearchwasmadebyhiminthenighttotrace, Billiya.He\\al_soenquiredfromtherelatives,butBilliyacouldnotbe\

ll

tracedout.Todayatabout3.30pun.Faikucameandinformed himthata deadbodyof fomaloi$lying neartheGalphula drain(Nala)andfloshof legs8ahandshéfVC besneatsnbythewildahimals,however,herface.itsintactandfromthe.faceit can beidentifiedthatthe. bodyisof BilliyaBai.KumariBilliyaBaiwashavingillicitrelationswithShobhuathandshe.waspregnantby,fourmonths.APanchayatinthevillage was.convenedin whichShobhnathwasalsocalledandonenquiry,heinformedthatinthefateful nightBilliya Bai hametohis house andinthe sameV.‘night.heleftBilliyaBainearherhouse.Onreceivingthemergintimation,Dehati Nalishi(EXP-13)[was]prepared andbasedbnthat‘F.I,R.(EX.P-13A)wasregistered.TheInvestigatingOfficerleftforthesceneofoccurrenceandaftergivingnoticetothePanchas(EX.P~3)‘:‘preparedthePanchnama(EX.P‘4)of thebody.Deadbodyof BilliyaBaiWassent for postmortem examinationtothe Primary HealthCentre,Kusmi,WherePW—6,Dr.T.SaiconductedthepostmortemonthebodyofdeceasedBilliyaBaiandpreparedthepostmortemreportEXZP~8in whichheopinedthat cause65 mode of deathis not known in absence of Vitalorgans85bonesanddurationof deathisabout6—7days.Site lplan(Ex,P—12)wasalsopreparedbytheInvestigatingOfficer.Duringinvestigationit wasfoundthatBilliyaBai‘havingwasillicitrelationswithShohhnatlrandinthefateful night she wentto houseof accusedSl‘fobhnath fromwhereShobhnathtookhertowardstheGalphulaDrain(Nala)[and]pushed her in the drain.

()A. After completion of investigation,the chargesheet wasfiledintheCourtoflearnedChiefJudicialMagistrate,‘inAmbikapur,whoturncommittedthecasetolearnedSgssions Judge, Ambikapur for trial..Theprosecutioninordertoprovethe. chargeagainsttheaccused examined10Witnesses.Thestatement of accusedwasalsorecorded by learnedSessions Judge under Section313 of the Cr.P,C.in which he denied the material appearingagainsthimandstatedthatheisinnocentandhasbeen falselyimplicatedinth€crimsandtheWitnesseshaddeposed against him on account of the animosity.

'.Lear11edSessionsJudgeafterhearingtheargun’lentsofAdditionalPublicPiosecutorandcounselfortheaccused,convictedandsentencedtheaccusedinthemannerasmentioned in Para~1 of this judgment.

.We.haveheardMr.Prasad,learnedcounselforthe'accused/appellant65Mr.Beriwal,AdditionalPublicProsecutorwithMr.xAgarWal,PanelLawyerforthe.State‘liespondent.

. Asfarasthequestionof involvementof accusediappellantincommitting‘themurderofKumariéilliyaBaiisconcerned,learnedcounselfortheaccused/appellantarguedthattheWholecaserestsonthe'€circumstantialevidence,thereis no direct evidenceinthis case andas perprosecutioncaseitself KumariBilliyaBaileftherpaternalhouse in the night of 17.7.1994, Whereas her dead body wasfoundon22.7.1994neartheGalphulaDrain(Naia)andthereisnoevidencethatWhathappenedinbetweeni.e.between17th to 22nd July,1994. He further argued that eventhedoctor(PW-6)couldnotgivethedefiniteopinionregarding cause of death on account of missing of limbs andbodv was eaten bV the Wild animals.

d

. On the other hand,learned Additional Publie Prosecutor forthe State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

.Havingheardlearnedcounselfortheparties,wehaveperusedtheimpugned judgmentandevidenceavailableonrecbrd.ItistruethattheWholecaserestsonthecircumstantiaievidenceandthereisnodirectandocular:(xgvidenceinthis caseto connect the accused/appellant withthe crime in question.In ordertocon‘vict an accused. basedonthe.circumstantialevidence,theHon’bleApexCourtinthematterofDhananjoyChatterjeeVs.StateofW.B.reported in (1994) 2 SCC 220 has held that; “Inacasebasedoncircumstantialevidence,thecircumstancesfromwhich u[‘]

the: conclusion of guilt isto b6 drawn havanotonlytob6fullyestablishédbutalsothatallthocircumstanccssoestablished9shouldb6ofaconclusivenaturoandconsistent only withthehypothoSisof thoof theaccused.Thosocircumstancesguiltshouldnotb6capableofbusingcxplaincdby any othcr hypothesis except theguilt[of]the accusedandthe chainof theevidencemustbesoasnottoleaveanycompletemasonable ground for the bclief[consistcnt]with the innocence of the accused.It needsnoreminderthatlegallyestablishedcircumstancescandnotmerelyindignationofthecourtcanformthebasisofconviction andthe more serious the crime,thegreatershouldbethecaretakentoscrutinizetheevidencelestsuspiciontakes the place of proof.”

10. Now, weshall proceedto examinetheevidence, which hasbeenadducedbytheprosecutioninordertoconnecttheaccused/appellant with the crime in questioni.e.

The deceased Kumari Billiya Bai was last seen togetheralivewiththeaccused/appellantinthenightofVQ17.7.1994.'é'.‘The accused/appellant was havingillicit relations withdeceasedBillivaBai,onaccountofthatshewasassuch deceasedBilliyapregnant[by][ four][ months][ and]Bai waspressinghimtokeepherashisWifeandastheaccuse‘diappellant wasalreadymarried,therefore,in thefateful night,accused/appellant tookBilliya BaitowardsGalphuladrain(nala)and’committedhermurder by pushing her in the said Galphula Nala.

11. AsfarasPoint No.1is concerned,PW-2Parvati—mother ofaccused/appellant,even though she has turnedhostile,hasstatedinherevidencethatinthefatefulnightshealongu»,withherhusband,accused/appellantandhiswifenamely

Savatri wasat1161‘r€sidencaD€C€a86dBillivaBai cametoherrasidencainth€night,themaftaraccusedfapp€1lantwentoutof thehousc:along withBilliyaBaiandatabout12,00 in the midnight he returned.In the cross-exagninationby the Additional Ppblie Prosecutor this witness has furtherstated that accused/appellant went withBilliya Bai to leaveheratherresidenceandlateron,shecame.toknowthatdeadbodyofBilliyaBaiwasfoundinthedrain.Thedistance from her house upto Galphula drain is of one hour.It is also correct that Biiliya‘Bai was pregnant 0n account ofphysicalrelationswith,theaccused.PW-3Bhagal hasalsoturn‘edhostileandhehasnotsupportedtheprosecutioncase. PW—5 Ramsai, who was Sarpanch of Village Civildaang,hasstatedthat the Panchayat was convened‘ontherequest.of Tenai (PW—8),. father of deceasedBilliya Bai,as Tenai wassuspecting Shobhnath behindthe murder.This witness hasalsoturnedhostile,however,inthecross—examinationbylearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorhehasstatedthatbeforethe Panchavat accused Shobhnath hadadmittedthatin the Sunday/night Billiya came to his house and thereafterhe.droppedherneartheculvert byacycle.PW~7NarayanRam hasalsostatedthata Panch'ayat was convened ontherequestofTenai-fatherofBilliyaBai,inwhichaccusedShobhnathwasalsocalledandheadmittedthathewashayingillicit relations withBilliya Bai sincelast two years.This witnesshasalsoturnedhostile.PW—8Tenai,fatherofGdeceasedhasstatedthataccusedShobhnéithwashavingillicitrelationswithhisdaughter,heusedtoroamalongwithhisdaughter,shewaspregnantbyfourmonthsonaccountof physicalrelationswiththeaccusedandbeforethePanchavataccusedShobhnathhadadmittedtherelationswithhisdaughterandhealsoinformedthePanchayat that‘he went along withBilliyaBai in thefateful,.nightuptotheculvert.PW—9SavitriBai,wifeofaccused/appellant,hasalsoturnedhostile andshe has notsupported the prosecution case.

1‘2. Thelawregardingconnectinganaccusedwiththecrime’laidbasedonthelastseentheory,ashasbeenbythe Hon‘bleApaxCourtinthamatterofBODHRAJALIASBODEAANDOTHERSVersusSTATEOFJAMMU85KASHMIR reported in (2002) 8 SCC 45,is that; “the5theoryoflastseencomesintoplaywherethetime—gapbetweenthepointoftimewhentheaccusedandthedeceasedwere Seen last alive and when the deceasedis found deadis so small that possibility ofanypersonotherthantheaccusedbeingtheauthorofthecrimebecomesxu‘impossible.It would be hazardous to cometoaconclusionofguiltincaseswherethereisnootherpositiveevidencetoconcludethattheaccusedandthedeceased were last seen together.[”]

InthematterofSubhashChandVs.StateofRajasthanreportedin (2002)1SupremeCourt» Cases 702the Hon'ble Apex Court has held[that;]

".‘...’I‘oconstituteevidenceoflastseentogether,theevidence'mustdefinitelyaninferencebeingdrawnthatthepermitVictim andtheaccused wereseen togetheratapointof timeincloseproximity[with]thetimeanddateofcommissionof'9crimem.”'d‘é

Inthe matter of State of Karnataka[Vs.]M.V. Maheshreportedin(2003)3SupremeCourtCases353theHon'bleApex Court has held that:

" ......Merely being seen last together[is][ not]enough.What hastobeestablishedinacaseof thisnatureisdefiniteevidencetoindicatethatBeenahadbeendonetodeathof Whichtherespondentisor mustbeawareasalsoproximatetothetimeofbeing last seen together...[."]

13. InViewofth€abovslawlaiddownbytheHon‘bleApexCourtb€f0reconvictinganaccu3€dbasal011the.lastseeHtogether thsory,the Courtisrequirodtoasccrtain fromthe.lagal clinching evidence that the. timo—gap betwean tho pointof time whenthedeceasedandtheaccusedwereseenlasttogetheraliveandthedeathof deceasedmustbesocloseandproximatethataninferenceregardingtheguiltofaccused can be drawn andthereis nopossibility[of][ coming]anythirdpersoninbetweenthelastseentogetheranddeathof thedeceased.Theremustbeunerringlyclinchinglegal evidencethat should point towardstheinvolvement oftheacgtisedincommissionof mrder.uFurhertitisunsafe1to convict a person based on the last seen theory unless thelastseem coupled withother cirumstancescisv-indieatorofthefactthat theaccusedistheauthor of the cime.rBasedon this principleif we look into the above evidence, from theevidenceof motherof accusednamelyParwati(PW—2)andPW—SRamsai,SarpanchofVillagewhoconvenedthePanchayat,itisestablishedthat theaccused/appellant hadadmiedttthat deceasedBilliya Bai cameto his houseinthenightof Sundayi.e.on17.7.1994andthereafterhealongwithBilliyaBaileftthehouseandaccused/appellantreturedninthe samenightallalonevHowever,the bodyofdeceedaswasfoundindeadconditionon22.7.1994.Wheterh based on the abovefact the accuse/appellantd canbe conectedn withthe crimein questionshall he dealt withlateron?4s

14. As far as the second point isconcerned, regaingrd this factalsothereisevidenceontherecordthattheaccused/appellantwashavingillicitrelationswithBilliyaBai(since[deceased)]andshe was pregnantby four months.This fact can be’inferredfom the evidenceofPW—2Parvati, rmdtheri of accusedin whichshehasstatedthattheBilliyaBai cametotheir houseandfromthereaccused/appellantleft along withBilliya.PW-4Mukund,who waspresentinthe Panchayat,hasstatedthat theaccused has admittedinthePanchayatthathewashavingillicitrelationswithBilliyaBai.PW—5Ramsaihasstatedthattheaccused admittadbeforethEPanchayatthatheWashavingillicitrelations;withBilliyaBaiandPW—7‘ hascorroboratfgdtheaboveevidence.PW—8Tenai,fatherof deceasedhasgsiatedthat accused Shobhram wae havingillicit relations €wiih~ herdaughter Billiya Bai.Therefore,this fact stands establishedfromtheaboveevidencethattheaccused/appellantwashaving illicit relations with Billiya[Bai.]

15. Now based ontheprinciplelaid down bytheHon'ble ApexCourtintheDhananjoyChatteijee’scasewehavetoexamine whether the prosecution has been[able]to establishI.crime‘againsttheaccusedfappellant.Itistruethatit hasbeenprovedbytheprosecutionthatinthenightof17.7.1994deceasedcametothehouseofaccused,fromwhere§accused85deceasedlefttogether‘andthereafteraccusedreturnedinthenighttohishouseafterleavingBilliya Bai.Itis also established that[the][ ac’é'used/appellant]washavingillicitrelationswithBilliyaBai.Nowthethat Whether ontheabove factsit can bequestion[remains]inferredthattheaccusedwastheauthorofcrimeinIfwelookintothetotalityoffactsandquestion.circumstancesof the case, weare‘of the considered opinionthattheprosecutionhasnotbeenabletoconnecttheaccusedwiththemurderofBilliyaBai,forthereasons,thereisnothingonrecordtoshowthattheaccused]appellanthadeveranyintention/plantocommitmurderof BilliyaBai andthereisnothing 6nrecord whichindicatethatwhytheaccused]appellaiit'i‘liadcommittedmurderofBilliyaBai.ItistruethatinSundaynightaccusedleftwithBillivaBaifromhishousewhereBilliy‘aBaicame,thereafterhereturnedallaloneandtheexplanationgivenbytheaccused]appellantinthisregardbeforethePanchayatgwasthatheleftBilliyaBaineartheUculvertto ensure that she went'back[to][ her][ house.]Dr.T.Sai(PW-6)[who][ conducted]the postmortem has’not beenabletoestablishthroughmedicalevidencei.e.postmortemreportthatBillivaBai wasmurderedandwhat wasthecauseofdeath.‘When Tenai (PW—8) was knowing[fully][ well][ that][ Billiya]Bai and the accused was havingillicit relations,sheleft the Roshanf- hous€in thenight of[17.7.1994][ and][ 51m][ did][ not][ mturn][ and]herwhereaboutswerenotknown,thonWhyht:hadnot18.7.1994[and][ why]iodged tho[roport][ in][ the]polico[station][ on]hehad waitedforfivedaystillthe bodyof BilliyaBai[was]foundinthoGalphuladrain(nala).Thopossibilityofthafact cannotbe.rulodoutthat whentheaccusedleftBilliyaBai,sheoutof frustrationmust havegonesomewheree1seandthereaftershedied.AshasbeenheldbytheHon'bleApex[Court][ that][ for][ connecting][ an][ accused][ in][ a][ crime][ based]onthecircumstantialevidenceeachofthecircumstancemust‘lgeindependently’provedandchainofallthecircumstancesmustbeestablishedthatshouldpointtowardstheguilt[of][ the][ accusedland]thereisnopossibilityof innocenceof[‘the]accusedandinvolvementof[any]otherperson[in][ crime][ in][ question,]

16. Lookingtothetime-gapbetweenthepointvfoftimewhenBilliya Bai[was][ found][ missing][ and][ her][ dead][ body][ was][ found,]causeofdeathcouldnotbeascertainedbythemedicalevidenceandthereisnothingonrecordwhichestablishesthat the accused[was][ determined][ to][ finish][ Billiya][ Bai,][ we][ are]of the considered[opinion][ that][ the]prosecution[has][ not][ been]abletoestablishthecrimeagainsttheaccused/appellantbasedonthecircumstantialevidence.Thereforefortheabovereasons,thefindingof thetrialCourt convictingtheaccused/appellantfor committingthemurderof BilliyaBaidcannot be[sustained.].d5l7.Intheresult,theappealsucceedsandsameisallowed.AppellantShobhnathisacquittedofthechargeunderSection302oftheIndianPenalCodeandconviction63sentence imposedupon himare herebyset aside.AppellantShobhnath[be;][ set]‘at liberty~ forthwithif not required‘Anin any7other case.

l

5d,-Sdl-L.C. Bhadoo1iV.K.ShrivastavaVJudgeJUdge'"'_"2}‘i7262605'Q_3-12.2005