Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 116 (JHR)

Dhebey Ghatwar v. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2006-02-15

M.Y.EQBAL, N.DHINAKAR

body2006
ORDER 1. Since Mr. Ram Priya Saran Singh who had been appointed as amicus curiae by the Patna High Court is not present in Court when the appeal is called out for hearing, we appoint Mr. Rajan Raj as amicus curiae to assist the Court. 2. The appellant, Dheby Ghatwar, on being tried under Section 302, IPC was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial Court and hence this appeal. 3. Jasi Kisku is the mother of deceased Talamayee Tudu. The deceased, Talamayee Tudu and Boila Tudu, the informant were residing in village Durgapur. The deceased developed relationship with the appellant and they used to move freely with each other. Nobody raised any objection for the deceased moving with the appellant as it is the custom in their community if they fall in love with each other. On 29.5.1985 the deceased accompanied by PW 4 Chhami Kisku, PW 6 Fulmani Hansda and PW 8 Buddin Marandi, were returning to the village after completing their job in the field. When they were near village Gosiapur on the way to their village, at about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m. the appellant on seeing them asked deceased Talamayee Tudu to accompany him. The deceased Talamayee Tudu willingly went with the appellant. PWs 4, 6 and 8 never took the said conduct of the deceased going with the appellant as suspicious as it is the custom in their community for the lovers to live together. PW 7 Jasi Kisku, the mother of the deceased was not in the village on the said date. When she returned to her village on 30.5.1985 she did not find her daughter in the village. She was informed by PWs 4, 6 and 8 that the deceased on the previous evening left with the appellant. Later the dead body of the deceased Talamayee Tudu was seen in the village. The villagers assembled and thereafter, fardbeyan (Ext. 4) was given on the basis of which the FIR (Ext. 3) was registered. Investigation of the crime was taken up and inquest was conducted. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. 4. On receipt of the dead body, PW 1 Dr. The villagers assembled and thereafter, fardbeyan (Ext. 4) was given on the basis of which the FIR (Ext. 3) was registered. Investigation of the crime was taken up and inquest was conducted. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. 4. On receipt of the dead body, PW 1 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Jaiswal conducted autopsy on the dead body of Talamayee Tudu and he found the following injuries : (i) One Sharp cutting injury on the left parietal region on the scalp 2" x. 1" x bone deep leading to fracture of parietal bone of which the lower fragment piercing the brain. (ii) One lacerated wound on the pinna of right ear 2" x 1/2". (iii) One abrasion on Zygometic process of the right side 2" x 1". The doctor issued post-mortem certificate (Ext. 1) with his opinion that the deceased could have died on account of intracrannital haemorrhage due to injury No. (i). 5. After the completion of investigation the final report was filed against the appellant. 6. When the appellant was questioned on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied all the incriminating circumstances. No witness was examined on his side. 7. Mr. Raj an Raj, who has been appointed as amicus curiae by this court, strenuously contends that the prosecution having relied upon the circumstantial evidence and having failed to establish all the links in the chain of circumstances, the trial Court was not justified in relying upon the evidence of PWs 4, 6 and 8 whose evidence is hearsay in nature, to convict the appellant on presumption. 8. We have heard Mr. Vibhuti S. Sahay, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 9. It is not in dispute that Talamayee Tudu died on account of the injuries suffered by her. The said fact stands proved through the evidence of the doctor (PW 1), who gave evidence and issued Ext. 1, the post-mortem certificate. 10. The only question that is to be decided by us is whether the appellant is responsible for the injuries found on the person of the deceased which led to her death. The said fact stands proved through the evidence of the doctor (PW 1), who gave evidence and issued Ext. 1, the post-mortem certificate. 10. The only question that is to be decided by us is whether the appellant is responsible for the injuries found on the person of the deceased which led to her death. PWs 4, 6 and 8 were examined by the prosecution to show that the deceased left with the appellant at about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m. on 29.5.1985 and that they in turn, informed PW 7 Jassi Kisku, the mother of the deceased about the said fact on the next day. The fardbeyan (Ext. 4) was given at the police station. It is relevant to state at this stage that apart from the evidence of PWs 4, 6 and 8 who have only stated that the deceased left with the appellant, the prosecution did not let in any evidence to show that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased. The mere fact that the deceased left with the appellant at about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m. on 29.5.1985 cannot, by itself, be a strong circumstance for this Court to hold that the appellant caused the death of the deceased Talamayee Tudu and thereafter left her body under a tree. 11. In the case of Deonand Mishra v. The State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 801 , the Supreme Court held that where there is no eye- witness to the murder and the case against the accused depends entirely on circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof required to convict the accused on such evidence is that the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by these circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. 12. When we apply the aforesaid principle laid down by the Supreme Court, which was favoured by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, we find that the facts of the case in hand fall within the four corners of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 13. In the above background, the prosecution having failed to establish all the links in the chain of circumstances, we cannot uphold the conviction of the appellant. 13. In the above background, the prosecution having failed to establish all the links in the chain of circumstances, we cannot uphold the conviction of the appellant. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant and acquit him of the charge. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.