HARISHCHANDRA PRASAD MANI AND ORS. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 26 · Decided: 31-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HARISHCHANDRA PRASAD MANI AND ORS. 
v. 
STA TE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR. 
JANUARY 31, 2007 
B 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
S.482-Cognizance of offence-No material indicating guilt of 
C accused-Cognizance taken merely on suspicion-Held, order taking 
cognizance of offence liable to be quashed. 
Prosecution case was that informant's son was murdered by the accused 
persons by hatching conspiracy. His dead body was brought with a false death 
D certificate and cremated. After investigation, police submitted a final report. 
Thereafter CJM after recording statement of witnesses, passed order of taking 
cognizance of the offence. 
Against the aforesaid order taking cognizance by the Magistrate, a 
> 
petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C which was dismissed by. the 
E impugned order. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The death certificate in respect of the deceased was issued 
by the Medical Officer which states that the cause of death is Cardio 
F Respiratory Arrest. The complainant submitted that the deceased had no 
history of cardiac problems. It is well known even persons with no history of 
heart problem can suffer a heart attack and can die. Moreover in the present 
case the appellant has shown the medical reports of the cardiologist of Patna 
which show that the deceased was a patient of severe hypertension (blood 
pressure) for a very long period. Hence, it cannot be said that the deceased 
G had no medical problems which could lead to his heart attack. [Para 10& 11] 
[29-D-Fl 
1.2. The complainant ha~ alleged that the deceased was killed by 
poisoning, but there is no iota of material that any poison was administered 
to him. There is nothing in the medical evidence showing that the dead body 
H 
26 
HARISHCHANDRA PRASAD MANI " STA TE OF JHARKHAND 
27 
of the deceased had any poisoning in it. It appears that the deceased had A 
vomited in the hospital when he was admitted, but the Police did not take any 
sample of the vomit for sending it to some laboratory for chemical analysis 
where it could have been established whether he had been given any poison. 
The cognizance has been taken on pure conjectures and surmises. [Para 12) 
[29-F-GJ B 
2. Cognizance cannot be taken unless there is at least some material 
indicating the guilt of the accused. There is not even an iota of material 
indicating the guilt of the accused persons. It is true that at the stage of 
taking cognizance adequacy of evidence will not be seen by the Court, but 
there has to be at least some material implicating the accused, and cognizance C 
cannot be taken merely on the basis of suspicion as it appears to have been 
done in the present case. To take a contrary view would only lead to 
harassment of people. [Paras 13, 14) [30-A-C) 
3. It has been alleged in the complaint that the wife of the deceased was 
having an affair with accused No. 2, but this itself is only a suspicion and D 
cannot be the basis of a conviction. Similarly, the fact that the in-laws of the 
deceased did not take part in his cremation is not evidence to show their guilt. 
[Para 15) [30-D) 
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, [1960) 3 SCR 388; State of Haryana v. 
Bhajan Lal, (1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335; Jania Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 E 
SCC 305; Raghubir Saran (Dr) v. State of Bihar, [1964) 2 SCR 336; State of 
Karnataka v. M Devendrappa, [2002) 3 SCC 89 and Zandu Pharmaceutical 
Works Ltd v. Mohd Saraful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE WRISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 
i 
~ 
F 
From the Finai Judgment and Order dated 6/5.5.2006 of the High Court 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (Cr!) No. 234/2005. 
P.S. Mishra, Upendra Mishra, Tathagat H. Vardhan, Dhruv Kumar Jha, 
Ravi C. Prakash, Hema Sharma and Bijan Kumar Ghosh for the Appellants. G 
Aman Lekhi, Samdarshi Sanjay, Rakesh Gauni and Venkateswara Rao 
Anumolu for the Respondents. 
B.B. Singh arid Kumar Rajesh Singh for the State of Jharkhand. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the 
Jharkhand High Court dated 6/5.5.2006 passed in Writ Petition (Cr) No. 234 
of2005. 
B 
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
4. It appears that one Suresh Chandra Sinha, respondent No. 2 in this 
appeal, filed Criminal Complaint being Complain
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.