SUDAMA PANDEY AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 465

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: U.C. BANERJEE, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN

Judgment text

SUDAMA PANDEY AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR DECEMBER. 5, 2001 • [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND KG. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ] Criminal Trial-Cirl'utnstantial evidence--Conviction on basis of-· Circumstances should be such as to . form a chain leading to i1iference ~f the guilt ~f the accused. Constitwion of India, 1950-Arllcle 136 : Concurrent.. findin{? s ide of the neck and right carotid artery and vein 1<ere found cut. There were injuries on the hands of the deceased also. The hymen was found entirely ruptured. The expert opinion was to the effect that there was no indication that rape was committed on her. The Doctor also noticed JO exam;nation of the dead body that the .. digested food materials of about 3 onz were found in the stomach and was of 1 the opinion that the deceased mig 1t have taken the meals 6 to 7 hours before the death.

The various incriminating c :rcumstances based on which the court drew the inference of guilt of the accused are enumerated in paragraph 55 of the Judgment by the Sessions Judge. These are as follows:- I. The accused persons have evil eye upon the deceased, moreover, apart from this, ha·;e got grudge. 2. On 6. 11. 96 at 9. 30 A. M. when the deceased was proceeding towards Karisath for attending class in a way, accused Bhuchai Mahato, Aasami @ Anil Deka and Anil Pandey were seen sitting on-a ridge at P. O. field, lying by the side of way. 3. Gudiya, deceased was seen proceeding on that way, towards Karisath. 4. Bhushan Mahato, Sudama Pandey and Kanhaiya were seen following her. 5. From the P/C fiel. l, Bhushan Mahato, Sudama Pandey, Madan Pandey, Bhuchai Mahala and Anil Deka were seen coming out. 6. Gudia had not all ended her school on 6. 11. 96. 7. They have been :cpprehended by the police on different dates.

On a bare perusal of the circumstances, it can easily be found that these circumstances are not sufficienl to prove that these appellants are guilty. The evidence in support of these cir. :umstances is that of PW4 Ekram Singh, PW5 Suryadev Pandey, PW I Satendra Singh and PW8 Dadan Singh. PW! is the brother of the deceased Gudia Kumari. He went in search of Gudoa in the evening of 6. 11. 96. He could not trace out Gudia. He had gone to the school where she was studying but the school was found closed. While he was returning, he saw all the seven accused persons sitting together and murmuring something and on seeing the witness, they maintained silence. He had also deposed that one week before the death, his sister Gudia Kumari had told him that these seven accused persons had teased her. It is important to note that PW! , when questioned by the Police, did not inform that the deceased was teased by the appellants a week prior to the incident.

It is also important to note that this witness had also not informed the police that on the evening of 6. 11. 1996, he saw Anil Deka, Ramnath Pandey and Jhinur Pandey talking among themselves near the house of Balmiki Pandey. Even if it is assumed that he had seen the accused together, that by itself is not an incriminating circumstantial evidence unless it was very near to the scene of occurrence or that they were found in suspicious circumstances. The evidence of PW-4 Ekram Singh was relied on by the Sessions Court. It is alleged that he had seen all the five appellants herein at about lO'o clock in the morning coming from the field of Ravi Shankar Pandey. The witness has no case that they were found under suspicious circumstances. They had no weapons with them nor their clo. thes were blood stained. The witness has also no case that these appellants had shown any anxiety on seeing the witness.

The Sessions Judge placed implicit reliance on PW4 on the assumption that these appellants were seen by PW4 immediately after the incident. It is important to note that Gudia Kumari must have taken food before she left for school and according to the evidence of the Doctor, the death must have happened about 6 to 7 hours after the consumption of the last meal. Therefore, even if it is assumed that PW4 had seen these appellants near the field of Ravi Shankar Pandey, it is not an incriminating circumstantial evidence, which would, in any way, advance the case of the prosecution. Another witness is PW5 Suryadeo Pandey. He deposed that he had seen Madan Pandey and Anil Deka sitting on the ridge near the field where the incident had taken place. He saw them at about 9. 30 a. m. on 6. 11. 1996. He also saw Gudia Kumari going to school and according to him, Sudama Pandey, Kanhaiya alias Jhingur Pandey and Bhushan Mahato were following her. It is 472 SUPREME COUR''' REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.

C. R. important to note that PW5 Suryadec• Pandey did not stale before the Police that he had seen Anil Deka and Mad in Pandey sitting on the ridge. It is also to be noticed that this witness was an accused in a criminal case where one Nageshwar Pandey, the father's brolher of the accused Madan Pandey, had been murdered. This witness was fou 1d guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Evidence of such a witness should have been considered by the Court of Sessions with extreme care and caution. Jn this case, all the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution had strong enmity towards the appel- . ! ants. Two persons were previously murdered and both of them were related to the appellants. PW5 and PW8 exa nined on the side of the prosecution were the accused in these criminal cases. The entire evidence adduced hy the prosecution would only go to show that the prosecution witnesses found these appellants in the vicinity of the place where the dead body was found.

These appellants were not found under any suspicious circumstances. All the appellants belong to the same village. If they were found sitting together or founj walking along the road, that by itself is not an incriminating circumstance pointing·to the guilt of the accused. The evidence to tl1e effect that some of the appellants teased the deceased Gudia Kumari is also not satisfactorily pro 1ed. Apart from this ! limsy suspicion, there is no evidence to connect these appellants to the crime. Had there been any cogent and convincing item of e\i idcnce to connect these appellants to the crime, such as recovery of any weapons allegedly used by them for committing crime or any blood stained clothes worn by them, it would have been of some assistance to prove the guilt of the appellants. The Investigating Officer could not lay his hands on any such incriminating material. The appellants were arrested inunediately after the incioent. None of them had any injuries on their body.

It is also suspicious whether the incident itself had occurred in the field • of Ravi Shankar Pandey. The In1 estigating Officer deposed that he did not notice in the mahazar that there w"e footmarks or the trampling of the plants near the area where the dead body was found. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty on fan< iful reasons based purely on conjectures and surmises and it is unfortunate tha cthe High Court also did not properly scan the evidence. It is all the more painful to note that the learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the scanty, discreQi',nt and fragile evidence, found the appellants guilty and had chosen w impose capital punishment on the appellants. We are of the view that Sessions Court as well as the High Court SUDAMA PANDEY v. STATE [BALKRISHNAN, l) 473 committed serious error in appreciating the circurnstantia1 evidence in this case A and it resulted in miscarriage of justice.

Therefore, we are constrained to interfere with the finding of the High Court and hold that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants had committed any of the offences charged against them. The appellants are found not guilty and they are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. They are directed to be released forthwith from· B the jail, if their detention is not required in any other case. The appeals are allowed accordingly. NJ. Appeals allowed.