MANNU SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 14th December, 1985 at about 11.00 A.M. a fardbeyan was recorded by Sub-Inspector of the Police Station, Nalanda at the behest of Manu Sao who informed that he is living with his wife Bimla Devi in his cabin at his agricultural lands in village Mohanpur. He was carrying on agricultural activity as he was possessed of agricultural land. On that very date at about 9.00 A.M., he had gone over to Nalanda for some personal work and after he returned to his cabin at about 10.00 A.M., he found his wife Bimla Devi lying in burnt condition in amidst chilly plantation in front of his cabin. There were serious burn injuries on her body, however, Manu Sau found her somewhat alive at that time and he asked one Bhola Babu for help to take her to a doctor for treatment. By the time, she could be lifted to be taken for treatment, she died. In these circumstances, while he was planning to go to the police station, the Sub-Inspector Hirdya Narain Singh came there who was subsequently examined as PW4. The Investigating Officer started the inquest proceedings and the dead body was sent for postmortem to Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif. The postmortem was conducted and the report Ex.4 was prepared on 14th December, 1985. It was noticed that she had suffered from burn injuries, both her eyes were closed and the tongue was protruding. Keeping in view the postmortem report, the Investigating Officer had a suspicion in mind and thereafter an FIR was recorded with reference to the postmortem report, it was found that Bimla Devi had died on account of throttling and ante-mortem injuries and, with an intention to cause disappearance of evidence, the body was burnt. The F.I.R. was Ext.5 and a case under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC') was registered. The suspect of commission of this crime was found to be Mannu Sao himself, the appellant herein. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses including that of the doctor and presented the charge-sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The appellant was charged with both the afore-stated offences. He pleaded innocence and was subjected to trial. The prosecution only examined four witnesses PW1 and PW2 co-villagers, PW3 Dr. Bidhu Bhushan Singh and PW4 Hirdya Narain Singh, Investigating Officer. The learned Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 21stDecember, 1987, convicted the accused for both the offences and awarded the punishment rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This judgment of the Trial Court was challenged before the High Court of Patna, though unsuccessfully. The High Court concurred with the finding of facts recorded by the Court and it sustained the finding of guilt as well as order of sentence awarded by the Trail Court. Vide judgment of the High Court dated 11th September, 2008 thus giving rise to the present appeal.

(2.) While impugning the judgment under appeal, the contention raised before us is that the case being that of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has not established complete chain of events and circumstances leading to the commission of the crime and involvement of the appellant. It was further contended that there was no motive as to why the appellant should have committed the crime and lastly, that it was a clear case of suicide by the deceased and there was no material evidence on record to arrive at the conclusion stated in the judgments under appeal.

(3.) There cannot be any dispute to the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness to the occurrence. It is a settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence, provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilt of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye-witness to the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of accepted principles in that regard.