Baiju Kumar Soni vs The State Of Jharkhand

2. According to the prosecution, a minor girl aged about 3½ years went missing on 08.01.2006 while she was playing in front of her house. PW10 Anil Prasad Soni, father of the girl searched for the girl on the first day and 2 thereafter lodged an information vide Sanha No.142/06 dated 09.01.2006 at 9.00 a.m. with the Officer In-charge of Bhurkunda Police Station, based on which a crime was registered vide FIR No.11/06 dated 13.01.2006 under Sections 364 and 365 IPC with Police Station Bhurkunda, S. Div. Ramgarh, District Hazaribagh.

3. According to the prosecution, a call was received by said PW10 on 11.01.2006 at about 1236 Hours, from Ramgarh STD Booth, from an unknown person threatening him that his brother was getting smarter for which said PW10 may have to pay the price. The caller told PW10 that his daughter would reach by the evening and told him not to tell the administration.

4. On the next day i.e. on 12.01.2006 at about 1335 Hours, PW10 again received a call from another STD booth i.e. from Patratu STD Booth, but it was a missed call. It appears that around the same time, another call was received by PW4 Uday Soni, brother of said PW10. The caller threatened said PW4 and told him that the caller had kidnapped his niece. When the caller was asked about the proof of the fact, the caller stated that PW4 could get the proof on the roof of the temple near their house. Thereafter, a poly bag 3 was found on the roof of the temple in which there was one red top and slippers of the girl as well as a threatening letter (Exhibit-II with Mark X – Written Paper of a copy for Identification)

5. It appears that a dead body of the girl was recovered in a black coloured rexin bag from the Dam on or about 18.01.2006 by Khelari Police Station.

10. On the basis of these circumstances, the prosecution contended that the offences in question were established against the appellants. The case of the prosecution was accepted by the Trial Court, which by its judgment and order dated 17-20.04.2009 convicted both the appellants and sentenced them to suffer 10 years of imprisonment for the offence under Section 364-A IPC and to suffer life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Though convicted, no separate order of sentence was recorded in respect of offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

16. In the light of these settled principles, from the facts and circumstances it is evident:

18. We are then left with circumstances at Serial Nos.2, 5 and 6. These circumstances do not form a chain so complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt or exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, nor are the circumstances sufficient and adequate to hold that the prosecution had established its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

19. Considering the totality of the circumstances, in our view, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellants. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. We, therefore, allow this appeal and acquit the appellants of the charges levelled against them.

The appellants be released immediately, unless their custody is required in connection with any other offence.