Ram Sunder Sen vs Narendra @ Bode Singh Patel & Anr

2. The case of the prosecution, stated briefly, is that on 19.05.2004 at 8.30 A.M., the complainant Ram Sunder Sen lodged a report at Police Chowki Kotar stating that there was a function in his house on 18.05.2004 in which his relatives and family members had gathered. His daughter Anita, aged about 12 years, after eating meal, had gone to sleep at 7.00 P.M. in front of the main gate of his house as there was no electricity in the house then. After the function was over, at about 11.00 P.M., he and his family members also slept there. Next morning i.e. on 19.05.2004 at 6.00 A.M., the wife of Sarpanch Vansbahadur informed that the dead body of Anita was lying in Bari near the house of the Sarpanch. She was not wearing underwear and skirt. There were abrasions on her forehead, nose and face. Abrasions were also found on the neck as well as nearby navel region. Blood was oozing out of private part, cut on the face and ankles of both the legs. FIR against an unknown person was lodged, the dead body was sent for post-mortem and investigation was thrown open. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. On the basis of the statement of the witnesses, accused Narendra @ Bode Singh Patel was arrested who admitted his guilt and at his instance, blood-stained underwears of the deceased as also the accused were recovered from a pitcher kept behind his house.

3. After investigation was complete, Police filed challan before the Court against accused Narendra and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. After considering the material on record and hearing the counsel for the accused, charges were framed against accused Narendra for offence punishable under Sections 302, 376(2)(f) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1873 (“IPC” for short). The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 18.12.2007, convicted the respondent accused and awarded capital punishment to him for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The Trial Court further sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f), and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs100, with default clause, for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for confirmation of death sentence vide Criminal Reference No.4 of 2007. The accused also filed an appeal before the High Court, being Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2008. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal filed by the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances sufficient enough to connect the accused with the alleged offence and, consequently, the respondent accused was set at liberty.

6. The Trial Court convicted the accused respondent on the basis of the prosecution story relying upon the circumstantial evidence. The law is well settled in deciding a case based upon circumstantial evidences. The prosecution tried to establish the following facts before the Trial Court :

9. The next incriminating fact is the recovery of the blood-stained underwear of the deceased made at the instance of the accused, from the house of the accused. However, upon careful examination, serious doubts are cast upon the incident of recovery. The witnesses to this seizure memo are Lalit Kumar Sen (PW9) and Dayanand (PW22). As per the deposition of PW9, many doubts are created. He deposed that red colour underwear as well as an underwear of accused were seized. However, he did not state as to whom did the red colour underwear belong. He also did not mention the place from where it was recovered nor did he mention the manner in which the articles were seized. PW22 further made certain doubtful revelations stating that at the time of recovery, only he, accused and the police were present. However, he only confirms the recovery of a red colour underwear, but the place and surrounding of the place of recovery were not deposed by PW22. The deposition of the above two witnesses raises various doubts about recovery of material facts. Therefore, the High Court correctly raised doubt that it is highly unnatural that the accused will keep the underwear in a pitcher in his own house.

16. Thus, in the light of the above discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the High Court. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

…....................................J (Pinaki Chandra Ghose) …...................................J (R.K. Agrawal) New Delhi;

October 15, 2015