DINESH ROY Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A minor girl Mina Kumari aged about 14 years only was raped and killed in a lonely orchard, None saw the occurrence and the witnesses testifying in the court could say no more than stating that when they left the orchard Mina Kumari remained behind and at a short distance the appellant was present spading a ridge. On purely circumstantial evidence learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga has found the charges under sections 302and 376of the Indian Penal Code proved against the appellant. On 10.12.1986 Mina, the informant's daughter had gone to collect fire -wood and dried leaves along with Manju Kumari (P.W. 2). Anju Kumari (P.W. 1) and Fuleshwari Devi. The first two are minor girls and the third is an elderly lady. They, however, left for their respective houses and Mina remained behind collecting fire -wood at Satiyara Ban. She did not return until 5 p.m. in the evening. The informant went in search of Mina along with several persons of the village and found her dead body having sharp injuries over her neck, chin and other parts of the body, clothes removed from her breast and Salwar pulled down up to thigh. Informant learnt from Anju Kumari and Manju Kumari that they had seen one person preparing ridge near the orchard when they had left Satiyara Ban and Mina stayed behind. Having found his daughter ravished and killed he informed the police. P.W. 5, the Officer -in -Charge and the Investigating Officer arrived on the information and took charge of the dead body, prepared inquest report and sent it to the hospital for post mortem examination. P.W. 6, who was the Medical Officer, in charge Department of Forensic Medicine at Darbhanga Medical College Hospital, held post mortem examination at about 12 a.m. on 11.12.1984 and found several ante mortem injuries upon the dead body of Mina Kumari. He gave a report of his findings in the said examination and has deposed affirming that there were ante mortem injuries upon the dead body of Mina Kumari which injuries had caused her death. Several persons suspected to have committed the offence were arrested by the police including the appellant who was taken in custody on 13.12.84. Before, however, he was taken in custody, he was examined by A.K. Yadav (P.W. 6) at Darbhanga Medical College Hospital on 11.12.84 at 3.45 p.m. He found several injuries upon the appellant.

(2.) IN the trial the prosecution examined two girls, Anju Kumari and Manju Kumari and the lady Fuleshwari Devi who were with Mina Kumari collecting fire wood and dried leaves in the Satiyara Ban, until they left together leaving Mina behind in the orchard, the informant, the victim's father, the Investigating officer and the doctor who held autopsy and examined the injuries of the appellant. In their deposition in the court the two girls and the lady P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have testified that they had gone to the orchard at Satiyara Ban to collect fire -wood and dried leaves with Mina Kumari but since the latter had not collected enough fire -wood, she climbed upon a mango tree and remained behind when they returned to their village. They have deposed that at the time they returned there was none else except the appellant who was digging earth by Kudal for making ridge. The informant (P.W. 4) has deposed that when he found that Mina had not returned until the evening at about 5 P.M. he went looking for her and found her dead body on the northern end of the orchard at Satiyara Ban. He was accompanied by several co -villagers. They found the dead body having sharp injuries over the neck, chin and other parts, clothes removed from her breast and her Salwar pulled down up to thigh. He has also deposed that he had learnt from P.Ws. 1 and 2 that they had left Mina Kumari alone in the orchard because she had not collected sufficient fire wood and she had climbed upon a mango tree for collecting fire -wood. He has said that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had told him that a man was in a nearby field besides Mina who was preparing ridge. P.W. 6 has deposed that Mina's dead body had one grazed abrasion 6" x 1/2" on the left side of the back. Grazing being directed downwards another abrasion measuring 3" x 1/4" on right lower side of the back with evidence of grazing, two incised wounds measuring 11/2" X 1/2" X 1/4" and 3" x 1/2" x 1/4" infront of the neck directed from side to side with the margins and underlying tissues found cut. In this the muscles, vessels and upper part of the traches were found completely cut with extensive infiltration of blood inside the wound. He also found six more incised wounds on the chin, cheek and chest. His examination further revealed that there were dead, broken and intact spermatozoa in the virginal canal suggesting the commission of sexual inter -course with the girl within 18 to 24 hours from the time of the examination. Cause of death, according to him, was haemorrhage and shock within 18 to 24 hours from the time of the post mortem examination. In his deposition he has also affirmed that he had found injuries upon the appellant in his examination which were: -

(3.) IT has been often repeated that witnesses may lie but the circumstances do not. At the same time the courts have cautioned themselves that where there is no eye witness and the case against the accused depends entirely on circumstantial evidence the standard of proof required to connect the accused on such evidence is that the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by these circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The courts proceed to examine evidence in a case always believing that the accused is innocent. This presumption of innocence has to hold the field until the circumstances or the evidence destroy it. It is due to this presumption of innocence it is followed almost as rule that the accused is entitled to all reasonable benefit of doubt. While this has to be borne in mind by a court considering evidence against the accused, it cannot, however, forget its social accountability. A reasonable doubt, it has been pointed out invariably, is the doubt of a legally attuned mind and not that of a sceptic or vacillating mind. Circumstances taken independent of each other may not go beyond the realm of suspicion but together they may create a chain to exclude possibilities of other kind for the offence. This is why the courts have always reminded themselves that the circumstances should be examined together and their cumulative effect should be taken into consideration and when they are taken as one integrated entity in a chain whether they destroy the presumption of innocence or not. In Deenandan Mishra v. The State of Bihar (AIR 1955 S.C. 801) the law on the subject has been stated as extracted: - -