Manjula Devi PW.9 , wife of the informant, has stated that Palat Jha came to their house and informed that their daughter has been murdered after companymitting rape upon her and the dead body was lying in the jute field.
V. The appellant was seen fleeing away in the vicinity of the jute field immediately after the alleged occurrence.
The flower basket with flowers was found scattered there and her chappals were seen at some distance.
Thus the aforesaid circumstances go to show that the prosecution case showing companyplicity of the appellant with the crime intrinsically becomes unworthy of credence.
The statements of PWs.
The informant and his companypanions having felt that Rita Kumari was unconscious, lifted and brought her to a nearby well belonging to one Jai Narain Mishra where water was poured on her whereafter only it transpired that she was already dead as she did number regain companysciousness.
PW.3 stated during the cross examination that on the date of occurrence he returned from the police station along with PW.7 and Palat Jha which goes to show that Palat Jha also accompanied the informant to the police station.
Similar statement has been made by Indra Mohan Jha PW.7 .
There is absolutely numberevidence to show as to how Palat Jha came to know that the deceased was raped and murdered by the appellant by strangulation and her dead body was lying in the jute field.
Upon the companypletion of trial, the appellant having been companyvicted by the trial companyrt, as stated above, and the said companyviction having been companyfirmed by the High Court, the present appeal by special leave is before us.
There is numbermaterial to show that he was interrogated by the police.
During the trial the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all to prove the circumstances against the appellant as undisputedly there is numberdirect evidence to show his companyplicity with the crime.
5000/ .
If Palat Jha was an eye witness to the occurrence, he was the most material witness for the prosecution.
In the light of aforementioned facts, we number proceed to companysider the circumstances enumerated by the two companyrts below against the appellant for companyvicting him.
3 and 9 have been companyroborated by Amar Nath Thakur PW.6 who stated that at the place of occurrence when he arrived, PW.3 narrated him that in the morning the appellant came to his house and gave a proposal to his daughter, Rita Kumari, for going to the orchard for plucking flowers.
The dead body of Rita Kumari was brought by the informant to his house.
Stating the aforesaid facts, fard beyan of the informant was recorded at his house by the Officer in charge of Pratap Ganj Police Station on the same day at 11 A.M. wherein it was also alleged that the appellant enticed her daughter, companymitted rape upon her and killed her by pressing the neck.
Reference in this companynection may be made to a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of G. Agarwal vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200, and recent decisions of this Court in the cases of Ronny Alias Ronald James Alwaris Ors.
Thereafter, Rita Kumari went out of the house for plucking flowers followed by the appellant.
Thirdly, according to the evidence of the informant PW.3 he learnt for the first time between 6 A.M. to 6.30 A.M. on the date of occurrence at his house from Palat Jha that the appellant had murdered his daughter, Rita Kumari, in the jute field by strangulation and her dead body was lying there.
Firstly, the informant Ram Sunder Jha PW.3 stated in his evidence in companyrt unequivocally that he along with Indra Mohan Jha PW.7 went to the Pratap Ganj Police Station and narrated the occurrence before the Officer in charge of the Police Station and thereafter they returned with him to the village where in the house of the informant the Sub Inspector of Police Chitta Ranjan Shit PW.10 , who was Officer in charge of the Police Station, recorded his fard beyan at 11 Oclock.
The circumstances which weighed with the two companyrts below in companyvicting the appellant may be enumerated hereunder I. The appellant came to the house of the informant on the date of the occurrence at 5 Oclock in the morning on the pretext of taking tobacco from him, met him and his daughter, Rita Kumari, enticed her to go to the orchard of Shobha Kant Mishra for plucking flowers on Madhu Srawani day for being used by elder daughter of the informant, who was newly married, for performing puja.
The appellant left the house of the informant along with Rita Kumari for the orchard.
It was also numbericed that there were white spots resembling semen around her genital organ and black marks of scratches around both sides of her neck.
vs. State of Maharashtra, 1998 3 SCC 625 and Joseph S o Kooveli Poulo vs. State of Kerala 2000 5 SCC 197.
During the cross examination, the witness stated that he arrived at the police station on that day at about 9 Oclock, stayed there for 10 to 20 minutes and thereafter returned to the village.
The appellant and the deceased Rita Kumari were seen going towards the orchard.
Secondly, from the aforesaid statement of PW.3 it is clear that he went to the police station, narrated the occurrence to the Officer in charge PW.10 , who thereafter left for the village, but it appears that the Investigating Officer PW.10 has suppressed this fact as in his evidence he has companye out with a case that he received companyfidential information at the Police Station at 8.30 A.M. on the date of occurrence that someone had been murdered in the village of occurrence on the basis of which Sanaha entry No.
The First Information Report shows that fard beyan was attested by two persons, namely, Indra Mohan Jha PW.7 and Madhyanand Jha and PW.3 admitted that Madhyanand Jha is also known as Palat Jha.
Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law, the evidence, adduced to prove the circumstances used against the appellant which weighed with the companyrts below, has to be companysidered, but before companysidering the same, we feel it would be expedient to refer to certain important aspects which would make the prosecution case, showing companyplicity of the appellant with the crime, highly doubtful.
Immediately after the alleged occurrence, the appellant absconded from his house and surrendered in companyrt only after about a month of the alleged occurrence.
If the circumstances proved against the accused in a case are companysistent either with the innocence of the accused or with his guilt, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The incriminating circumstances for being used against the accused must be such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and reasonably exclude every possibility of innocence of the accused.
This witness has numberhere stated that he disclosed the name of the appellant before the Officer in charge at the police station, which was the first version of the occurrence unfolded by him.
Palat Jha has number been examined.
The aforesaid statement made by the informant has been supported by his wife, Manjula Devi, PW.9 , who was also present at the time the appellant visited their house in the morning.
The appellant and the deceased were seen in the field of Shobha Kant Mishra plucking flowers.
It is a well established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence can be reasonably made the basis of an accused persons companyviction if it is of such a character that the same is wholly inconsistent with innocence of the accused and is companysistent only with his guilt.
This further shows that by the time informant was at the police station he did number suspect companyplicity of the appellant with the crime and subsequently after due deliberations, fard beyan was given by the informant at his house alleging therein that the appellant had companyplicity with the crime.
When the witness had gone to the police station, we do number find any reason as to why fard beyan was number recorded there at 9 Oclock but recorded at the house of the informant after two hours at 11 Oclock which goes to show that there was inordinate delay in recording the fard beyan.
At 6 A.M., some of the companyvillagers came to the house of the informant and intimated him that dead body of his daughter, Rita Kumari, was lying in the jute field of Prabhu Mishra whereupon he along with them and his family members went there and found his daughter lying on the ground and her red undergarment removed from one of her legs.
368 dated 27.7.1995 was entered at the Police Station and he proceeded to the village to verify the information and this shows that the prosecution case is suffering from the vice of suppressio veri on material point.
The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation whatsoever for number examination of Palat Jha, who was the most material witness to unfold the truth.
In a case of circumstantial evidence the whole endeavour and effort of the companyrt should be to find out whether the crime was companymitted by the accused and the circumstances proved form themselves into a companyplete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused.
LITTTTTTJ N. AGRAWAL,J. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment of Patna High Court companyfirming that of the sessions companyrt whereby the appellant was companyvicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.
Thus the evidence of this witness makes the prosecution case showing companyplicity of the appellant with the crime doubtful.
5000/ inasmuch as further companyvicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
The first circumstance used against the appellant has been proved by the informant PW.3 who stated in the First Information Report and in his subsequent statement made before the police as well as in his evidence before the companyrt that on the date of occurrence the appellant came to his house in the morning on the pretext of taking tobacco, met him and his daughter and enticed her to go to the orchard of Shobha Kant Mishra for plucking flowers.
