LexRAMJEE RAI AND ORS versus ST A TE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAMJEE RAI AND ORS. 11 ST A TE OF BIHAR AUGUST 24, 2006 B [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860: Section 34-Common intention-Jn furtherance of-individual overt C acts-Exact pinpointing of-Murder--Deceased and his brother forcibly taken on a boat by a group of persons, variously armed, and letting the boat to move freely-Deceased was assaulted by accused persons and the dead body carried away in the boat-Dead body recovered after five days-Trial court convicted the accused persons under Ss. 302134 and 201-High Court affirmed D the conviction-Correctness of-lfeld: In a case of this nature, it is not possible to pinpoint the exact overt acts committed by each of the accused persons-Hence, invoking of S. 34 against all accused persons justified. Criminal Trial: E Murder-Corpus delicti-Dead body-Discovery of-Requirement- Held: Discovery of dead body is a rule of caution and not of law-If there exists strong circumstantial evidence, conviction can be recorded even in the absence of the dead body. Murder-Time of death-Non-ascutainment of-Whether fatal to F prosecution case-Held: Medicai science has not achieved such perfection so as to pinpoint the exact time of death-Hence, not fatal to prosecution case. Witnesses-Independent witnesses-Non-examination of-Effect of- Held: Ordinarily the prosecution should examine all witnesses whose names G have been disclosed in the charge-sheet-But, this is not a rule of universal application-It is the quality of the evidence but not the quantity which matters. According to the prosecution, the appellants-accused, variously armed, H 240 RAM JEE RA! v. STATE OF BI HAR 241 took the deceased and his brother (PW-3) forcibly on a boat letting the boat A to move freely. After the boat had proceeded some distance, the accused persons started assaulting the deceased. PW-3 jumped from the boat and started swimming, shouting and crying for help. The deceased died as a result of the assault and his dead body was carried away in the boat. The dead body was recovered after five days by the 'Chowkidar' (PW-4) 1ofthe village who knew the deceased from childhood. According to the doctor who conducted the B postmortem, the soft parts were eaten away by the fish. The doctor further opined that it was difficult to assess the period past since death. But, according to him, it might have been approximately to days. The trial court convicted all the accused persons under Section 302/34 C read with Section 201 of the Penal Code, 1860. The High Court affirmed the conviction. Hence the appeal. On behalfof the accused persons, it was contended that keeping in view the postmortem report which clearly showed that only bones were visible, the dead body could not have been identified; that some of the independent witnesses D were not examined whereof the accused persons suffered grave prejudice; that the autopsy surgeon had opined that death must have taken place approximately to c!ays prior to the postmortem examination and, therefore, the prosecution case should be disbelieved; and that the individual overt acts of the accused persons had not been p()inted out. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It is now a trite law that corpus delicti need not be proved. E Discovery of the dead body is a rule of caution and not of law. In the event1 there exists strong circumstantial evidence, a judgment of conviction can be recorded even in the absence of the dead body. [248-E, Fl F Rama Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [1981) I SCC 511 and Ram Gu/am Chaudhaiy v. State of Bihar, [2001] 8 SCC 311, relied on. 2. What was, therefore, necessary for the courts below to arrive at a finding of guilt as against the appellants is in regard to their involvement in G the crime. It is not a case where the dead body could not be identified. There had been sufficient materials placed by the prosecution to bring home the said fact. [249-AJ 3.1. It is true that ordinarily the prosecution should examine all H 242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006J SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A witnesses whose names have hem disclosed in the charge-sheet; but, then the same cannot be said to be a rule having universal application. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. (249-Cf 3.2. It is now well-settled that what is necessary for proving the prosecution case is not the quantity but quality of the evidence. The Court B cannot overlook the changes in the value system
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.