Case: Harendra Narain Singh Etc Vs. State Of Bihar

Jagia, the deceased was brought to the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh while she was alive. There is further no evidence as to who brought her to the dispensary in what condition. The only evidence which the prosecution has produced in this respect is that a dead body was taken out from the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh and placed on the ekka by Ram Nath Singh and others and taken to village Dibbi 10. The High Court was conscious of the weakness of the prosecution case, even then it upheld the conviction of the appellant perhaps on moral grounds. In para 3 of its judgment the High Court observed "Although 14 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution there is no direct evidence or eye-witness account of murder. The witnesses however are not all relevant even for proving the circumstances and other collateral matters." * 11. After making the aforesaid observations ordinarily the High Court should have rejected the prosecution case which was based on circumstantial evidence but strangely enough the High Court in spite of the aforesaid observations, upheld the conviction of the appellants 12. While dealing with the case of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh the High Court observed that he was a man of shaky character. This observation was made on the basis that even though he was a homeopath doctor but allopathic medicines were recovered from his dispensary. In our opinion, mere recovery of allopathic medicines from the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh does not necessarily show that he was a man of shaky character. It is a matter of common knowledge that even a homeopathic doctor sometimes refers the patients to allopathic treatment. The fact of recovery of allopathic medicines has no connection or relation to the commission of the offence for which Dr. Harendra Narain Singh has been convicted. The High Court further observed that when the dead body of the deceased was taken out from the dispensary by Ram Nath Singh and other accused persons Dr. Harendra Narain Singh was present at the spot, therefore he was so closely connected with the affairs taking place at his house that none could without his assistance to anything. Apart from his there was no other evidence or circumstances against Dr. Harendra Narain Singh. It is significant to note that according to the prosecution when the dead body of the deceased was taken out of dispensary and placed on ekka Ishwar Shah and Bishwanath Singh alias Bissu accused were also present at the dispensary along with Dr. Harendra Narain Singh yet they have been acquitted by the High Court. The High Court failed to give any cogent reason for upholding the conviction of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh13. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record and considered the various circumstances and the facts of the case. In our opinion, there are two glaring circumstances which are fatal to the prosecution case. The prosecution has produced evidence only to the effect that a dead body was taken out of the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh by Ram Nath Singh and other accused persons and the same was carried on the ekka to village Dibbi. The prosecution witnesses have merely deposed that they had seen a dead body being placed on the ekka and taken to village Dibbi. None of the prosecution witness has however, deposed that he had seen the face of the dead body or identified the same. In the absence of such evidence it would not be reasonable to assume that the dead body which was taken out from the dispensary and placed on the ekka was that of the deceased Jagia Devi. In the absence of identification of dead body by the witnesses it is not legitimate to hold that the dead body which was taken out from the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh was that the Jagia Devi. There is another vital defect in the prosecution case. The prosecution failed to produce any evidence that the deceased Jagia Devi was taken to the hospital for treatment by Ram Nath Singh and other accused persons while she was alive and that she was admitted to the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh for treatment, at a time when she was alive. In the absence of any such evidence there are various possibilities and probabilities, one of them being that the deceased may have been brought to the dispensary for medical assistance after she was found to be strangulated by someone. There is further no evidence of the fact that when the deceased was inside the dispensary no other person had access to her except the appellants. In the absence of any such evidence it would not be legitimate to assume that the deceased was strangulated in the dispensary by Ram Nath Singh with the connivance of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh. Merely because the appellants failed to raise any such plea in their defence does not lend any support to the prosecution case. The prosecution has to succeed on the basis of its own evidence and it cannot rely on the absence of defence to sustain the guilt as there is no justification for raising such assumption against the appellants. The circumstances established by the prosecution are not sufficient to conclusively point to the appellants as the perpetrator of the crime or to rule out the hypothesis of their innocence. Since the prosecution failed to prove the necessary facts showing that the deceased while alive was last seen in the company of the appellants or that the dead body which was carried on the ekka was that of the deceased Jagia Devi, the High Court was not justified in drawing adverse inference for completing the chain of circumstances to uphold the appellants conviction merely on the appellants false explanation in defence14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the High Court and the trial court both committed error in convicting the appellants.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Since the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence it is necessary to refer to the principles which should guide the court in considering the conviction of an accused resting on circumstantial evidence. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence must be fully established from which there should be inevitable conclusion of the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, ruling out any hypothesis of innocence of theour opinion, mere recovery of allopathic medicines from the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh does not necessarily show that he was a man of shaky character. It is a matter of common knowledge that even a homeopathic doctor sometimes refers the patients to allopathic treatment. The fact of recovery of allopathic medicines has no connection or relation to the commission of the offence for which Dr. Harendra Narain Singh has been convicted. The High Court further observed that when the dead body of the deceased was taken out from the dispensary by Ram Nath Singh and other accused persons Dr. Harendra Narain Singh was present at the spot, therefore he was so closely connected with the affairs taking place at his house that none could without his assistance to anything. Apart from his there was no other evidence or circumstances against Dr. Harendra Narain Singh. It is significant to note that according to the prosecution when the dead body of the deceased was taken out of dispensary and placed on ekka Ishwar Shah and Bishwanath Singh alias Bissu accused were also present at the dispensary along with Dr. Harendra Narain Singh yet they have been acquitted by the High Court. The High Court failed to give any cogent reason for upholding the conviction of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh13. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record and considered the various circumstances and the facts of the case. In our opinion, there are two glaring circumstances which are fatal to the prosecution case. The prosecution has produced evidence only to the effect that a dead body was taken out of the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh by Ram Nath Singh and other accused persons and the same was carried on the ekka to village Dibbi. The prosecution witnesses have merely deposed that they had seen a dead body being placed on the ekka and taken to village Dibbi. None of the prosecution witness has however, deposed that he had seen the face of the dead body or identified the same. In the absence of such evidence it would not be reasonable to assume that the dead body which was taken out from the dispensary and placed on the ekka was that of the deceased Jagia Devi. In the absence of identification of dead body by the witnesses it is not legitimate to hold that the dead body which was taken out from the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh was that the Jagia Devi. There is another vital defect in the prosecution case. The prosecution failed to produce any evidence that the deceased Jagia Devi was taken to the hospital for treatment by Ram Nath Singh and other accused persons while she was alive and that she was admitted to the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh for treatment, at a time when she was alive. In the absence of any such evidence there are various possibilities and probabilities, one of them being that the deceased may have been brought to the dispensary for medical assistance after she was found to be strangulated by someone. There is further no evidence of the fact that when the deceased was inside the dispensary no other person had access to her except the appellants. In the absence of any such evidence it would not be legitimate to assume that the deceased was strangulated in the dispensary by Ram Nath Singh with the connivance of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh. Merely because the appellants failed to raise any such plea in their defence does not lend any support to the prosecution case. The prosecution has to succeed on the basis of its own evidence and it cannot rely on the absence of defence to sustain the guilt as there is no justification for raising such assumption against the appellants. The circumstances established by the prosecution are not sufficient to conclusively point to the appellants as the perpetrator of the crime or to rule out the hypothesis of their innocence. Since the prosecution failed to prove the necessary facts showing that the deceased while alive was last seen in the company of the appellants or that the dead body which was carried on the ekka was that of the deceased Jagia Devi, the High Court was not justified in drawing adverse inference for completing the chain of circumstances to uphold the appellants conviction merely on the appellants false explanation inIn view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the High Court and the trial court both committed error in convicting the appellants.