JUNAB MANJHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On purely circumstantial evidence, we shall refer to, the appellant bas been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has said that on 8.5.1976 at about 4 p.m. Deonoth Rai (victim) had gone to Bansohi Bazar and returned to Hasanpur Chatti at about 7 p.m. In Hasanpur Chatti he went to the toddy shop of one Kitab Mian (P.W.2). The appellant was, in the said shop from before. There had been Borne altercation between the appellant on the one hand and Deonoth Rai on the other hand on the question of sale of toddy. This led to quarrel between them. Deonoth Rai assaulted the appellant with chappals. People present in the shop, however, intervened and pacified him. The appellant thereafter left the place for his house, but soon returned and apologized to Deonoth Rai. They both thereafter left the shop. In the night at about 10 p.m. the appellant and Deonoth reached the house of P.W. 3 Mundrika Ram and smoked ganja at his house. Deonoth told P.W. 3 that he was going with the appellant to reach him to his house. On the following morning Deonoth was found dead in the field of one Sheopujan Rai situated in between Sarsaiya and Hasanpur village.

(2.) P.W. 2 is a witness of what happened in the toddy shop and P.W. 3 is a witness, who has claimed that the appellant and Deonoth were seen together at his house in the night at about 10 p.m. or thereafter. The prosecution has, however, introduced a. case that when the investigating officer held the inquest of the dead body at the spot, one new plastic chappal and one old towel were found besides the Kurta and Lungi of Deonoth Rai. It is doubtful whether the plastic chappal and old towel said to have been found near the dead body were actually found by the investigating officer and the witnesses, who have proved the search and seizure lists. There is no mention in the inquest report (Ext. 6) of any plastic chappal or towel found with the belongings of the victim at the spot. The circumstances,T however, in their totality, and granting everything to the prosecution, come to these: (i The appellant was last seen with the victim in the night until, 10 p.m. and thereafter. The appellant had a quarrel with the victim in the evening at about 7 p.m. in the toddy shop of P.W. 2 Kitab Mian. He, however, apologized and both as friends left the shop and went to the house of P.W. 3 and smoked Ganja together. The victim told P.W. 3 that he was going with the appellant to reach him to his house. (ii) On the following morning the dead body of the victim Deonoth Rai was found in a field newly ploughed. (iii) A chappal and a towel said to be belonging to the appellant were found near the dead body.

(3.) We have assumed that the prosecution has been able to prove that the plastic chappal and a towel belonged to the appellant were found near the dead body, but even if we go with the prosecution that far and further accept that due to the quarrel which took place in the toddy shop, the appellant had some annoyance and the appellant and Deonoth Rai were last seen together, it will still be difficult to hold that all the links in the chain of circumstances we proved and the chain is such that none but the appellant could commit the murder. Law on the subject is well-settled. Any loose noose of the chain will create doubt, which may benefit the accused. The last words that were spoken by the victim were that he was going with the accused to reach him to his house. He had, according to the evidence of P.W. 3 indicated to return alone after the appellant reached his house. He could fall a victim of any other unfriendly hand or unknown hand in the way. This possibility alone is enough to give to the appellant the benefit of doubt. We have only cursorily noticed the evidence. He cannot desist saying that the plastic chappal and old towel found near the, dead body have not been proved beyond doubt to belOng t6 the appellant. But assuming that the two articles found near the dead body belonged to the appellant, still from that it cannot be said that the appellant had come with the victim to the field and there left the plastic chappal and the towel. The prosecution has chosen a story that the towel was seen in the evening at about 4 P.M. with the appellant by one of the witnesses and the plastic chappal was seen in his leg before the occurrence. Granting in favour of the prosecution that the plastic chappal and towel belonged to the appellant, it cannot be said that merely because certain articles belonging to the appellant were found near the dead body, the appellant and the appellant alone could commit the murder.