'Contradictory Versions And Sketchy Evidence': Jharkhand HC Overturns Death Sentence Of Man Convicted For Murder Of Pregnant Wife, Infant

The Jharkhand High Court recently set aside the death sentence awarded to a man by the trial court which had convicted him for the murder of his pregnant wife and 15-month-old infant child, citing "sketchy evidence" and the fact that the prosecution was unable to prove the circumstances of the case. 

In doing so, the high court expressed its concern with the manner in which the alleged crime was investigated and prosecuted during trial adding that none of the circumstances were proved to show that the husband was complicit. 

Taking note of the prosecution's evidence, a division bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary in its order observed, “What is apparent from the above discussion is that the prosecution case has crumbled like a house of card. Neither the circumstances have been proved which can lead to a conclusion that the appellant was complicit in offence, nor any consistent prosecution version has come which can be relied upon. There is no evidence of last seen. This is how a crime of a most gruesome nature has been investigated and prosecution conducted during trial". 

"There was evidence of past marital discord, but there is no evidence that the appellant had extended life threat to the deceased. It is surprising how on these contradictory versions and sketchy evidence, learned trial court convicted the appellant and awarded death sentence. Judgment of conviction and sentence is not sustainable,” the bench added.

Apart from husband two other people had grievance against deceased wife

Noting the propositions advanced by the prosecution, the court noted that the allegation of dowry demand by the husband had neither been framed as a charge nor was it followed up during trial. It said that based on the prosecution's case, it appeared that apart from the husband, there were at least two persons who nursed grievances against the deceased and had "abused, assaulted and threatened" her. They were the father of the husband (deceased's father-in-law) and a woman whose relationship was opposed and objected by the deceased wife.

According to the FIR and the testimony of the informant, the Court noted that as per the FIR and the testimony of the informant, on the same day that the incident occurred, it was this other woman who had extended life threat to the deceased.

Therefore, the Court opined that the circumstances did not "conclusively unerringly establish" that it was the husband who had committed the offence.

"On close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it will transpire that these circumstances have not been properly proved and even if it is assumed to be true to some extent they do not complete the chain from which an inference can be drawn that it was the appellant and none else who committed the crime," the bench said. 

No chargesheet against woman who allegedly extended life threat to deceased

It said that the prosecution had alleged that the husband was in the village on the night of incident but there was no oral or electronic evidence led in support of this argument. It said that an evening before the incident, the "informant" received a call from the deceased that she was abused, assaulted and threatened by the woman that that her father-in-law was allegedly involved with; however "surprisingly the charge sheet" was not submitted against this woman. 

The above ruling came in a Death Reference filed by the State and a Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant, against an August 2023 Sessions Court judgment which had convicted the appellant under IPC Sections 302 (murder), 34 (common intention) and had further sentenced him to death. The man was also convicted under IPC Section 315(Act done with intent to prevent child being born alive or to cause it to die after birth) and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine.

As per the FIR lodged by the informant–who was also the father of the deceased– alleged that his daughter was married the appellant in 2014. It was alleged that they initially shared a normal conjugal relationship, but over time, the deceased was subjected to cruelty in reference to dowry demand. It was alleged that the appellant developed a relationship with another woman, which was opposed by the deceased, and this opposition led to her being assaulted, and she returned to her parental home.

After much persuasion, the deceased returned to her matrimonial home. It was alleged that for two years, the appellant's father had been involved in an illicit relationship with a woman and when the deceased opposed this relationship, she was extended life threat. It was further alleged that on the day of the incident, during the evening hours, the deceased informed her father telephonically that this other woman had abused and threatened her. The next day, the  brother-in-law called the father of the deceased informing him that she was missing; when her family arrived at the in-laws' house, they found their daughter's dead body. They also found the body of her 15-month-old child in a nearby well. 

Duty on trial court to exercise scrutiny while awarding death sentence

The Court further expressed its surprise at the trial court's acceptance of the oral testimony of the Investigating Officer to prove the tower location of the appellant husband to be in the village on the date and time of incident and of his being in constant touch with the deceased on the fateful night.

“The learned trial court appears to have lost sight of the fact that electronic records produced for the inspection of the court come within the meaning of evidence and when the original is not proved, the print out like CDR, is to be proved as per Section 65 B of the Evidence Act. Contents of such record cannot be proved by oral evidence. In the absence of the proof, circumstance nos.V and VI cannot be legally considered,” the Court underscored. 

Before parting the high court emphasized on the duty cast on trial courts to exercise greater degree of scrutiny care and circumspection while awarding death sentence. It said that the court cannot remain a "moot spectator but should be alive and alter during criminal trial".

"Even if prosecution omits inadvertently or deliberately, to bring on record all relevant materials, courts on its own stop prosecution and seek clarification," the bench underscored. 

Taking note of the manner in which investigation, prosecution and trial has been conducted, the bench said that it has no option but to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. 

"The Death Reference is accordingly answered in the negative. Criminal Appeal is allowed," the high court directed. 

Case Title: Anand Kumar Dangi v. State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 152

Click Here To Read Judgement