GUNA MAHTO versus STATE OF JHARKHAND

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 782 · Decided: 16-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
GUNA MAHTO
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND
(Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2012)
MARCH 16, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302, 201 – Murder – Prosecution case
that husband murdered his wife and dumped her dead body in well
to cause disappearance of evidence and later lodged missing report
with the police – Conviction u/ss. 302 and 201 by the courts below
– On appeal, held: Non-examination of the Investigation Officer
has, in the attending circumstances rendered the prosecution case
to be doubtful if not false – Offence u/s. 201 could not have been
proven without his examination – Courts below presumptively,
proceeded with the acquired assumption of the guilt of the accused
for the reason that he was lastly seen with the deceased, and lodged
a false report, forgetting that as per the version of the father of the
deceased, father of the accused had himself apprised him of his
missing daughter, at least two days prior to the incident – Doubt
and suspicion cannot form basis of guilt of the accused –
Circumstances linking the accused to the crime are not proven at
all, much less beyond reasonable doubt – There is no evidence-
ocular, circumstantial or otherwise, which could establish the guilt
of the accused – There is no discovery of any fact linking the accused
to the crime sought to be proved, much less, established by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt – Courts below erred in
passing the order of conviction based on incorrect and incomplete
appreciation of evidence, causing serious prejudice to the accused,
also resulting into travesty of justice, thus set aside.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Mahrashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Venkatesh v.
State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine SC 765;
Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra,
(2021) 1 SCC 596; Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2022) 10 SCC 321; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v.
State of M.P. (1952) 2 SCC 71; Ramaphupala Reddy v.
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 782
782
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
783
State of Andhra Pradesh (1970) 3 SCC 474; Balak Ram
v. State of U.P. (1975) 3 SCC 219 : [1975] 1 SCR 753;
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC
217 : [1983] 3 SCR 280 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1985] 1 SCR 88
referred to
Para 7
(2021) 1 SCC 596
referred to
Para 16
(2022) 10 SCC 321
referred to
Para 16
(1952) 2 SCC 71
referred to
Para 17
(1970) 3 SCC 474
referred to
Para 18
[1975] 1 SCR 753
referred to
Para 18
[1983] 3 SCR 280
referred to
Para 18
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
108 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2004 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in CRLA No. 214 of 2001.
Veer Pal Singh, V. N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the Appellant.
Gopal Prasad, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. The present criminal appeal is filed by appellant Guna Mahto,
found guilty of murdering his wife Smt. Deomatiya Devi under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Ld. Trial Court, Daltonganj in
Sessions Trial Case No. 50 of 1989 titled as State vs. Guna Mahto vide
judgement dated 10.05.2001. The Ld. Trial Court sentenced the appellant
to a term of life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and two years rigorous imprisonment in relation to the offence
punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. On appeal, in the impugned judgment delivered by the High
Court of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2001 dated 23.07.2004
titled as Guna Mahto v. State of Jharkhand and findings in respect to the
conviction and sentencing arrived at by the Ld. Trial Court were affirmed,
GUNA MAHTO v. STATE OF JHARKHAND
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
784
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
despite observing that the Investigation Officer was not examined by
the prosecution. Be that as it may, the High Court solely relied upon the
ocular evidence of Banaudhi Mahto (PW-2), Samodhi Yadav (PW-9)
and Nandish Yadav (PW-10).
3. Hence the present appeal filed by the appellant Guna Mahto.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had committed
the murder of his wife and thereafter dumped her dead body in the well
of the village with an intent to cause disappearance of the evidence
related to the crime. Later, the accused approached the Police with
unclean hands by fabricating a false story, wherein he reported his wife
to be ‘missing’.
5. On 13.8.1988, the dead body of the deceased was found in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.