BAIJU KUMAR SONI & ANR. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 1111 · Decided: 01-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1111
 BAIJU KUMAR SONI & ANR.
  v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2018)
AUGUST 01, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 364A, 201 and 302/34 –  Prosecution under –  Reliance
on circumstantial evidence –  Conviction by courts below –  Appeal
to Supreme Court –  Held: In a case based on circumstantial
evidence, every circumstance must be fully proved and all the
circumstances must form a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude
every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused –  The
circumstances relied on in the present case do not form a chain so
complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt or exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to be proved –  The circumstances
are also not sufficient and adequate to hold that the prosecution
had established its case beyond any reasonable doubt –  Thus, the
prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused –
Therefore, the accused are acquitted –  Evidence –  Circumstantial
Evidence.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, every
circumstance must be fully proved and all the circumstances must
form a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude every
hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.[Para 14] [1116-E]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Nizam and
Another v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 1 SCC 550 :
[2015] 10 SCR 786 – relied on.
2. From the facts and circumstances it is evident: that a)
Though PW7 stated that two calls were made from his STD Booth
on 12.01.2006 at about 1327 Hours and 1338 Hours to specified
mobile numbers, nothing has been brought on record that those
two mobile numbers either belonged to PW4 and PW10 or were
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 1111
1111
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
in any way under their control.  In order to establish as a
circumstance that on the relevant day threatening calls were
received by the said PWs 4 and 10 from the appellants, the
important fact which ought to have been established was that
those two mobile numbers either belonged to or were under the
control of said PWs 4 and 10. Even if it is accepted that said PW7
had identified the appellants to be the ones who had made two
calls, that does not lead to infer that the calls must have been
made to PWs4 and 10. This circumstance has not been fully
established which could be read against the appellants.b) Though
drawing book had been received from the house of appellant No.1
and it was the case of the prosecution that the threatening letter
(Exhibit-II) was written on a piece of paper from said drawing
book, no attempts were made either to have any forensic analysis
or examine handwriting expert to establish that the writing in
the threatening letter was either of the appellants or could be
associated with them. [Para 16] [1119-B-F]
3. The dead body was found ten days later on 18.01.2006.
The post mortem, conducted thereafter, indicated time of death
to be between 3 to 7 days.  Even if the outer margin is considered
to be the limit, the circumstance by itself does not fit in, assuming
it to be completely against the appellants. [Para 17] [1119-G-H]
4. The circumstances viz. recovery of scarf and chocolate
wrappers and biscuits and recovery of dead body in the rexin
bag, do not form a chain so complete as not to leave any
reasonable doubt or exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, nor are the circumstances sufficient and
adequate to hold that the prosecution had established its case
beyond any reasonable doubt. [Para 18] [1119-G; 1120-A-B]
Case Law Reference
[1985] 1 SCR 88
   relied on
Para 14
[2015] 10 SCR 786
   relied on
Para 15
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 42 of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2017 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 887 of 2009
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1113
Shree Prakash Sinha, Rakesh Mishra, Ms. Mohua Sinha,
Ms. Jagrati Bharti, Shekhar Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants.
Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated
14.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dismissing
Criminal Appeal No.887 of 2009 preferred by the appellants herein and
thereby affirming their conviction as recorded by the Trial Court in respect
of offence punishable under Sectio

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