LexDAUNA DEVI versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 138
DAUNA DEVI
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
Criminal Appeal No. 1530 of 2004
APRIL 29, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Evidence: Circumstantial evidence - Conviction by
courts below - Held: Circumstances highlighted by courts
C below did not meet the requisite standard applicable to cases
based on circumstantial evidence - Conviction set aside.
The trial court passed conviction order on the basis
of circumstantial evidence. High Court upheld the
0 conviction. Hence present appeal.
E
Appellant contended that the trial court and the High
Court erroneously observed that the house where the
dead body was recovered belonged to two accused
persons.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: In a case of circumstantial evidence it has to
be conclusively es!ablished that the chain of
circumstances lead to the only inference, that of guilt of
F the accused ruling out the possibility of involvement of
any other person to be the author of the crime. There was
no evidence to show that appellant was the o·Nner of the
house and/or was staying in the house at the time of
alleged incident. No question was put in this regard in
G the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The
circumstance highlighted by the trial Court and the High
Court did not meet the requisite standard applicable to
cases based on circumstantial evidence. All other
circumstances including so called confession were
H
138
-
DAUNA DEVI V. STATE OF BIHAR
139
-
..i
disbelieved by the trial court and the High Court. Therefore, A
the conviction of the appellant as recorded cannot be
maintained. [Para 2] [141-8-E]
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
No. 1530 of 2004
B
From the Judgement and Order dated 06.08.2003 of the
~
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal
No. 249 of 1996
Sudhir Nandrajog, for the Appellant.
c
Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, with him forthe Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
'
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the D
Division Bench of the Patna High Court confirming conviction
of the appellant who faced trial along with one Ran Lakhan Rai
for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section
34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
'IPC'). Each was directed to undergo R.I. for life for the first
E -
offence and two years for the later offence.
..
2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as
follows:
Siya Devi, the informant to this case and the mother of the
F
deceased was married with Ram Lakhan Rai and from their
wedlock the deceased Bhikhani Kumari was born. Thereafter
her husband (Ram Lakhan Rai) fell in bad company and meted
inhuman treatment to the informant, as a result of which she
went to her father's place. In spite of the efforts made bythe
informant, there was no effect on her husband and finally on
G
;_
-"
9.2.1981 accused Ram Lakhan RaHhrew her out of the house.-.
Accused Ram Lakhan Rai married Dauna Devi, the appellant.
'-
Then the informant filed a criminal case in which Ram Lakhan
Rai had absconded. The informant had al.so filed a case of H
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS -
{2009] 7 S.C.R.
A
maintenance under Section 125. Cr.P.C., against her husband
and the appellant No.1 was ordered to pay maintenance but he
did not comply with the order and the informant filed a Misc.
case for its execution. Ext.9 is certified copy of the order of Misc.
case No.8 of 1981 (Siya Devi vs. Ram Lakhan Rai) under
B Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused Ram Lakhan Rai
agreed to keep the informant and her daughter and he started
keeping them and he pressurized the informant to withdraw the
case which she had instituted. When the informant did not
withdraw the case, accused Ram Lakhan Rai instituted a case
c on her witnesses Dr. Ambika Singh and Shital Sah for abducting
the informant and her daughter to put pressure on her. On
26.7.1984 the informant went to her father's place and she left
her daughter Bhikhani Kumari (deceased) in the house of her
husband. On 31.7.1984 one Kishori Kumari informed her that
D her husband had either concealed her daughter, somewhere or
murdered her. The informant came to her husband's house and
searched for her daughter. On enquiry, she learnt from Bishuni
Numar, Kishori Kumar (PW-4) and Ram Chandra Sah (PW-14)
that the accusd Ram Lakhan Rai, Bindeshwar Thakur, Ram
Ekbal Rai aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.