Chain Of Circumstances Must Unerringly Point Towards Guilt Of Accused: Patna High Court Sets Aside Rape And Murder Conviction

The division bench of Justices Alok Kumar Pandey and Ashutosh Kumar underscored, "We can test the material of present case on the circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness account of the present case but each circumstance (which may be relevant facts or fact in issue) should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the proved circumstance must form complete chain. The chain of circumstances must unerringly point towards the guilty of the accused i.e. it should be only reasonable probability of causation of offence."

The Appellant was held guilty of rape and murder of informant's (PW-5) daughter and convicted under Sections 376(D), 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 6 of the POCSO Act.

According to the prosecution's case, the informant's 12-year-old daughter went outside the house to attend to her nature's call on the fateful day but she was later found dead, with her neck pressed and an injury inflicted on her mouth.

The Court, at the outset, deemed it necessary to scrutinize, analyze, and sift through the evidence presented by witnesses before the Trial court in relation to offenses under Sections 376(D), 302 of the IPC, and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.

Upon thorough examination of the case evidence, the Court observed that the case lacked direct evidence, as no eyewitness account was evident.

The Court took note of PW-5, the narrator of the initial version of the written statement, who unfolded the prosecution's story in a sequence of events. In the first sequence, it was revealed that the victim left the house alone for personal needs, and no one was seen accompanying her. Simultaneously, the informant, Anirudh Sah (PW-2), reported the suspicious escape of the appellant. Acting on this information, a search was conducted, leading to the discovery of the victim's dead body in a haystack.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted, "From the aforesaid narration of initial version, it is clear that no one is eye witness of the alleged occurrence. But when we scrutinize the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5, we find that PWs 1 and 5 have improved their case in order to make their depositions fit in the scheme of the prosecution version put forth 21 before the trial. They have already stated that both are not eye witness of the alleged occurrence and they have also not seen anyone going towards the victim."

Moving on to the question of raising a finger against the appellant, the Court said it was merely a ballpark assessment against the appellant, and their evidence were full of infirmities and imperfections which strike at the root of the prosecution story as they were the factual witnesses who had not been declared hostile.

Regarding the hostile witnesses, such as PWs 2, 3, and 4, the court stated that they were declared hostile because they did not support the prosecution's case and provided misleading information in their testimony.

Continuing, the court noted, "The postmortem report indicates incident of sexual assault on the victim before she died of asphyxia, as a result of throttling though which is quite in consonance with the initialversion of prosecution story. The FSL report does not show any connectivity of the appellant with the victim."

The court observed that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) did not make an effort to obtain documents regarding the victim's age, a requirement under the statutory provisions of the POCSO Act.

The Court criticized the I.O. for relying solely on the Aadhar card to determine the victim's age, highlighting the lack of investigation regarding the age of the victim according to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's age under statutory provisions, relying instead on self-proclaimed statements by the informant and other witnesses without legal basis, claiming the victim to be 12 years old.

The Court emphasized a clear guideline for assessing both direct and circumstantial evidence. It stated that a fact is considered proved when the court believes it exists after considering the presented matters. Additionally, the section outlines how a prudent person would form a supposition in a given case.

The Court illustrated the example of a weapon, such as a knife or gun, emphasizing that while it is not considered evidence, the court must still take it into account.

The Court asserted, "Judge should step into shoes of a prudent man. A common man would have many suppositions for the cause of occurrence in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence. There are several circumstances which are placed before the court but it is only based on supposition."

"Then the court evaluate each supposition when the court have ruled out the suppositions, it is only such suppositions which has the highest probability, should be relied upon and taken as a proved. That is how the fundamental principle in respect of circumstantial evidence evolves," the Court added.

Thus, the Court concluded that neither direct nor circumstantial evidence adequately supported the prosecution's case. It asserted that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court held that the Trial court had failed to prove the evidence in correct perspective. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquitted the appellant of the charges levelled against him, while allowing the appeal.

Appearance :

For The Appellant/S: Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Krishna Kant Pandey, Adv.

For The Respondent/S: Mr. Bipin Kumar, App

Case No.: Criminal Appeal (Db) No.229 Of 2023

Case Title: Munna Ansari Vs The State Of Bihar Bihar

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 16

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment