ARJUN MARIK AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 02-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ARJUN MARIK AND ORS. 
) 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
MARCH 2, 1994 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
l.P.C. 1860-Sections 302, 394 and 411-Death sentence-Multiple 
' Murders and Robbety-On re-appreciation of evidence, held, offence not 
proved against accused-<:oncummt findings of two courts reverseti-Acquit-
tal. 
F.l.R.-Delay in lodging-Not lodged till after raid in appellants' house 
and seizure of lllticles allegedly robbed vitiates prosecution case . 
A 
B 
c 
. Recovery and identification of lllticles-Raid conducted in clandestine 
mannel"'-Exact weigh~ same number and detailed description of recovered D 
lllticles by witnesses, held, inherently improbable-Delay in identification of 
' articles not explained. 
Interested witnesses-Evidence of, requires greater care and caution, 
though mere relationship cannot be sole basis to discard evidence other.vise 
found believable and trustwolthy. 
E 
O. P.C. 1973-Sections 156, 157, 159-FIR sent to magistrate on the 
third day after the occurrence, held, casts doubt on credibility of prosecuton 
story-Also, held, even after delay total absence of material for actual 
despatch and receipt of FIR by Magistrate not on record. 
Section 157-Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate-f'rosecution explana-
tion that in State of Bihar FIR is never sent to residence of Magistrate on 
Sundays and holidays-Held, such a practice would render mandatory 
provisions nugatory-ff such practice prevalent, it must be deprecatetf-The 
F 
provisions to be complied with in letter and spirit. 
G 
Criminal appeal-f'ractice-Coun will not disturo concurrent findings 
of fact l.lllless it is manifestly erroneous, illegal or violative of fundamental 
'rnle of procedure or natural justice. 
Circumstantial evidence-Moti~e and opponunity assumes importance H 
265 
.. , 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
!1994] 2 S.C.R. 
A where only circumstantial evidence is available. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Circumstance of-Last seen-Held, only circumstance of last seen will 
not complete chain of circumstances-Conviction cannot be on that basis 
alone. 
Possiblity of crime being committed by someone else, held, canot in the 
circumstances be ruled out. 
In the intervening night of 19 and 20 July, 1985, S. his wife and their 
grand daughter were murdered. Ornaments, cash and other belongings 
were allegedly robbed. The appellants charged, tried, and convicted for 
offences under sections 302, 394 and 411. The Sessions Court sentenced 
, each of them to death under section 302, and to 10 years R.I. and 3 years 
R.I. respectively, which were dlirected to run concurrently. The High Court 
confirmed the conviction and sentence. 
The prosectlon case was that Sitaram was a money lender. The first 
appellant who bad taken loans from him, came to the house, of S with his 
2 sons to raise a further loan which S refused to advance. The appellants 
thereafter stayed overnight ou the upper storey. Early morning, 'S' his wife 
and grand daughter were found dead and the appellants were missing. 
Valuable articles, ornaments, currency notes worth Rs.14,000 and some 
clothes and papers were found missing. 
On raiding the honse of the first appellant, a plastic bag containing 
the stolen ornaments, currency notes and other belongings were allegedly 
recovered. 
The nephews of 'S' identified the articles, Including the curency 
notes. They also testified to the presence of the accused at the place of 
ocurrence on the preceding night, and to the relationship between the 
deceased and the accnsed. 
On appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Generally, mere absence of proof of motive for commls-
sion of a crime cannot be a ground to presume the innocence of an accused 
if the Involvement of the accused is otherwise established. Where the only 
evidence available is circumstantial evidence then the motive does assume 
importance. If it is established form the evidence on record that the 
/ 
" 
r 
( 
ARJUN MARIK v. STATE OFBIHAR 
267 
~ 
accused had a strong motive and also an opportunity to commit the crime A 
and the established circumstances alongwith the explanation of the ac· 
cosed, if any, exclude the reasonable possibility of any on~ else being the 
perpetrator of the crime then the chain of evidence may be cosidered to 
show that within all human probability the crime must have been com· 
milted by the accused. (273-H, 274-A·B] 
B 
1.2. There is no material on record to suggest that 'S' was a money 
> 
lender or that the accused took loans from him. It

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.