Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 282 (UTT)

State of Uttarakhand v. Sangeeta Devi

2024-04-29

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RITU BAHRI, C.J. 1. The State has come up in appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2023 passed by Learned District and Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar), in Sessions Trial No. 13/2021 whereby the respondent Sangeeta Devi has been acquitted of facing charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’). 2. The case set up by the prosecution was that a complaint was given to the Police Station in charge, Joshimath, District Chamoli by Satish Chandra Dimri with the allegations that Ramu Rishidev @ Lalu and his wife Sangeeta were living as tenants in the house of Mr. Bhagwati Prasad Dimri adjacent to his house, for the last one month. On 29.01.2021, at around 09:00 p.m., they were having a fight and upon hearing the noise, the complainant came out and found Ramu Rishidev lying outside the above-mentioned house in a comatose state and he was bleeding from his head. The accused Sangeeta Devi was standing there. When the complainant asked about what happened, the accused said that the deceased had a fight with her and she hit him with a ‘silbatta’. The complainant informed the police and also called the ambulance. Ramu Rishidev (deceased) was taken to the hospital where doctors declared him dead. 3. A charge sheet was filed on 27.04.2021 and on 10.08.2021, accused Mrs. Sangeeta Devi was charged for offence under section 302 of I.P.C. 4. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses: “PW-1-Satish Chandra Dimiri (complainant) PW-2-Constable 134 C.P. Pradeep Rawat PW-3-Dr. Surya Narayan Singh PW-4-Shri. Pradeep Rana PW-5-Sub-Inspector Sumit Baduni PW-6-Shri. Jaideep Purohit PW-7-Sub-Inspector Satendra Singh PW-8-Inspector Rajendra Singh Kholia PW-9-Sub-Inspector Hemkant Singh Semwal.” 5. Sangeeta Devi was charged for offence under section 302 of I.P.C. 4. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses: “PW-1-Satish Chandra Dimiri (complainant) PW-2-Constable 134 C.P. Pradeep Rawat PW-3-Dr. Surya Narayan Singh PW-4-Shri. Pradeep Rana PW-5-Sub-Inspector Sumit Baduni PW-6-Shri. Jaideep Purohit PW-7-Sub-Inspector Satendra Singh PW-8-Inspector Rajendra Singh Kholia PW-9-Sub-Inspector Hemkant Singh Semwal.” 5. In the documentary evidence, the written report (Tehrir) as Exhibit A-1, General Diary as Exhibit A-2, Chik First Information Report as Exhibit A-3, General Diary as Exhibit A-4 up to Exhibit A-16, Post-Mortem report as Exhibit P-17, spot map of the place of incident as Exhibit P-18, arrest memo of the accused as Exhibit P-19, Information Memo as Exhibit P-20, one stone slab seized by the police as Exhibit P21, blood soaked soil and plain soil seized by police as Exhibit P-22, charge-sheet as Exhibit P-23, report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Dehradun as Exhibit P-24, Panchnama of the deceased as Exhibit P-25, photo of the dead body as Exhibit P-26, Police Form-13 as Exhibit P-27, Sample Stamp as Exhibit P-28, photo copy of the identity card of the deceased as Exhibit P-29, and letter written to the Medical Officer regarding post-mortem as Exhibit P-30. The prosecution presented stone slab as Exhibit-1 and white cloth as Exhibit 2. 6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein she stated all the facts to be false. Accused Smt. Sangeeta Devi stated that there was no fight between her and her husband (deceased). Some people had brought her husband and he was covered in blood. When she asked them as to what happened, they ran away. Thereafter some people took her husband to the hospital.She also stated that she has not killed her husband and is not aware of the prosecution forms and she further stated that PW-9 Sub-Inspector Hemant Semwal has given false statements. 7. PW-1-Satish Chandra Dimri (complainant), while identifying the accused Sangeeta Devi before the court, stated in his examination-in-chief that she is the same woman who has committed the incident on 29.01.2021. He further stated that on 29.01.2021 at 09:00 p.m. when he heard the noise around his house, he went outside and reached the house of Bhagwati Prasad Dimri, where he saw that the accused’s husband was lying unconscious on the ground and the accused was also present there. He further stated that on 29.01.2021 at 09:00 p.m. when he heard the noise around his house, he went outside and reached the house of Bhagwati Prasad Dimri, where he saw that the accused’s husband was lying unconscious on the ground and the accused was also present there. The deceased was soaked in blood and a stone was lying next to him which had blood on it.The complainant immediately called the police and also called the ambulance, which reached the spot at 09:15 p.m. and took away the dead body in the ambulance. The police took the accused with them. This witness in his cross-examination has stated that he did not watch the accused committing the crime. He further stated that when he reached the spot, the dead body of the deceased was soaked in blood, the accused was standing near the deceased, she had nothing in her hands and neither the hands of the accused were stained with blood. 8. PW-1 (complainant) has stated in his original complaint that the accused Sangeeta Devi was standing near the unconscious body of her husband (deceased) at the alleged time of incident. When he came out of his house the accused while standing next to her unconscious husband said to the complainant “I have killed him” but this witness in his examination-in-chief has not made these statements. The trial court observed contradiction between the statements made by the complainant in his original complaint and in his examination-in-chief. 9. PW-1, in his statements, has stated that the police had reached the place of incident on 29.01.2021 at around 09:15 p.m. and had taken the accused with them at the time, however as per the arrest memo the accused has been arrested on 31.01.2021 which is two days after the date of occurrence of the incident i.e. 29.01.2021. The arrest memo has been proved as Exhibit-P-19 by PW-7-Sub-Inspector Satendra Singh. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused had fled form the spot. The prosecution failed to prove why the accused was not arrested immediately despite her presence on the spot, when according to the police, the body of the deceased was soaked in blood and a blood stained silbatta used in the incident was lying on the spot and the complainant had told the police about the alleged confession of the accused. The prosecution failed to prove why the accused was not arrested immediately despite her presence on the spot, when according to the police, the body of the deceased was soaked in blood and a blood stained silbatta used in the incident was lying on the spot and the complainant had told the police about the alleged confession of the accused. The trial court concluded that the evidences of the prosecution are contradictory and doubtful. It appears from the prosecution witness that the accused was neither present at the spot, nor did the police find the statements made by PW-1 at the spot credible enough to arrest the accused. 10. PW-4-Pradeep Rana, driver of 108 ambulance stated in his cross examination that when he reached the spot, the complainant and the wife of the deceased was present there. PW-6, the emergency technician of 108 ambulance in his examination-in-chief has stated that when the complainant asked the accused about the alleged incident, the accused in front of us, stated that I have killed this person (deceased) because he used to trouble me after drinking alcohol. But when PW-6 was cross-examined, he stated that the accused did not talk to them. P.W 1 has not made any statement before the court regarding the accused killing her husband. 11. The Trial Court observed that if it was established from the statements of PW-1 that the accused has hit the deceased with the stone slab (silbatta), leading to his death, then why the police did not take the possession of the ‘silbatta’. The police should have taken possession of the stone and investigated the fingerprints on the stone but this was not done. Also, no blood-soaked clothes of the accused were seized by the police which could have definitely and positively helped in proving the guilt of the accused. This fact casts doubt on the prosecution story. 12. The trial court further concluded that the motive of the alleged offence is not clear from the prosecution’s evidence. There is no oral or medical evidence available on record that deceased used to drink alcohol and he used to beat the accused after consuming alcohol. The trial court after going through the entire material on record formed the opinion that the prosecution has completely failed to connect the chain of circumstantial evidence in this crime with each other without breaking it. The trial court after going through the entire material on record formed the opinion that the prosecution has completely failed to connect the chain of circumstantial evidence in this crime with each other without breaking it. It is a well-established principle that “fowler crime higher the proof.” 13. The trial court concluded that the since none of the witnesses examined in the present case are eye witnesses, therefore, the case is based on circumstantial evidence.It is a well settled principle that in a case which rests on the circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements: (i) Every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of he accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. (ii) All the circumstances must be consistent pointing only towards the guilt of the accused. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Raja Naykar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC Online SC 67, wherein it is held that: “14. Undoubtedly, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has very well been crystalized in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, wherein this Court held thus: “152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55 and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656 . This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55 and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656 . It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant Case (1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129: “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Cri LJ 1783 where the observations were made: [SCC Para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 15. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 16. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” 15. It is well settled by now that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the conviction ought to be recorded only in cases where all the links of the chain are complete, pointing to the guilt of the accused. 16. Having gone through the material on record we are of the considered view that evidence adduced against the accused do not form a complete chain connecting them with the crime and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 17. The extra judicial confession of the accused before PW-1 is questionable. PW-1 in his original complaint has stated that on 29.01.2021 at 09:00 p.m. when he was sitting at his home with his family, he heard some noises. When he came out, he saw that in the neighboring house of Bhagwati Prasad Dimri, the deceased (Ramu Rishidev) was lying in a state of unconsciousness and blood was flowing from his head. His wife (accused) Sangeeta Devi was standing there. Upon asking she stated that she hit her husband with a stone slab (silbatta). However, PW-1 has not made any statement regarding the accused killing her husband. Further PW-6 Jaideep Singh, himself has stated in his statements that upon reaching the spot, the wife of the deceased person did not talk to us. Further the accused was arrested two days after the alleged incident. However, PW-1 has not made any statement regarding the accused killing her husband. Further PW-6 Jaideep Singh, himself has stated in his statements that upon reaching the spot, the wife of the deceased person did not talk to us. Further the accused was arrested two days after the alleged incident. If the accused had confessed to killing her husband, the police must have arrested her on the same day. The prosecution has not been able to prove why the accused was not arrested on the spot. 18. In Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 referring to the aspect of evidentiary value of extra judicial confession, it was observed: “14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on the extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration.” 19. In the present case there are no eye witnesses to affirm and corroborate the fact that the accused has allegedly confessed that she has killed her husband (deceased). In the absence of any credible corroboration of the actual occurrence of such a confession, the court does not see any cogent reason to interfere with the decision of the Trial Court. 20. The Trial Court in our opinion has therefore rightly acquitted the accused after recording cogent reasons and good grounds. The prosecution has failed to connect the chain of circumstantial evidence in this crime, without breaking it. The prosecution has failed in corroborating the alleged confession with material evidences. The prosecution has not been able to give reasons for the delay in arresting the accused, especially when she was present at the spot and as per the statements of prosecution witnesses, did not try to abscond. Given the inherent inconsistencies and incongruities in the evidence present, the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 21. The prosecution has not been able to give reasons for the delay in arresting the accused, especially when she was present at the spot and as per the statements of prosecution witnesses, did not try to abscond. Given the inherent inconsistencies and incongruities in the evidence present, the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no merit in this appeal, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 22. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.