Jharkhand High Court
Nandlal Yadav vs The State Of Bihar ….. Opp. Party on 16 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:19963-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
--------
Cr. Appeal No. 212 of 1998 (DB)
------
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 22nd April, 1998 and
order of sentence dated 24th April, 1998, passed by learned
1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial
No.33 of 1997/19/1997)
------
Nandlal Yadav, son of Tilak Yadav, Resident of village-Ghat
Jhilwa, (Laxmi) Police Station-Godda (Muffassil), District
Godda. ... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar ..... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
.....
For the Appellants : Mrs. Priyanka Boby, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
.....
Dated: 16th July, 2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of
conviction dated 22nd April, 1998 and order of sentence
dated 24th April, 1998, passed by learned 1st Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No.33 of
1997/19 of 1997, by which the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the
offence under Section 302 IPC and further sentenced to
under rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section
201 IPC. Both the sentences are directed to run
concurrently.
Prosecution Case:
2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and
propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background
of institution of prosecution case.
3. The case has been lodged by P.W. 2, Champa Devi
[informant] the wife of the deceased. She reported on 04-
05-1996 that on 03-05-1996, her she-goat was missing.
She made search, but could not find out. In the evening
the deceased who was her husband came after labour.
She informed him that the she-goat was missing. Then
her husband went to search out the said she-goat. When
he returned at 8:00 PM in the night, he stated that
Jhupara @ Gopal Ram, Mahabir Ram and Shakar Ram
killed the she-goat. After taking meal her husband went
to the house of Jhupara @ Gopal Ram by saying that he
would ask Jhupara as to why he killed his she-goat so he
should give money.
4. The informant has further stated that her husband did
not return in the night. There was Kirtan [Prayer] going
on and also marriage being performed in the night in her
village. She thought that her husband might have gone
to attend those ceremonies. On the following morning,
when her son, namely, Guli Yadav went to search, he
saw that the dead body of her husband was thrown in
2
the north of new house of Jhupara. She went there and
she also found the dead body with several injuries.
5. The informant has further stated that at that time, on
the alarm Deepnarayan Choudhary of village Jamni and
others assembled there. She informed them about the
previous incident. At this the leader called on Jhupara
near a tree and asked why he did show. At this Jhupara
kept mum did not stated anything and showed his
evasion to say anything. Then the leader asked to report
to the police. Then Jhupara and his sons fled from their
house. On the background of above facts, an F.I.R. was
instituted.
6. The police, after investigation, submitted Charge-sheet
against the accused persons. Accordingly, the learned
court framed charge against the accused persons.
7. The prosecution in order to prove the case has adduced
evidence, both documentary and oral whereas the
defence case is the total denial of the involvement of the
accused persons in the case.
8. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses,
examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded
the statement of the accused persons and found the
charges levelled against the appellant-Nandlal Yadav
proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the
appellant had been found guilty and convicted, as stated
3
above, which is the subject matter of instant appeal.
However, the other charge-sheeted accused persons,
namely, Jhupara @ Gopal Ram, Shankar Ram, Mahabir
Ram, Manilal Yadav and Deepnarayan @ Bibha Ram
were acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
Submission on behalf of appellants:
9. Mrs. Priyanka Boby, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence on the following
grounds:
I. Prosecution has miserably failed in proving the
charge leveled against the appellant and learned
trial court has committed error of law in
evaluating and analyzing the evidence in coming
to the conclusion.
II. Submission has been made that it is a case
where there is no eye witness to the occurrence
and only on the basis of surmises and
conjectures, the appellant has been convicted
and sentenced for life imprisonment.
III. Further submission has been made that the
judgment of conviction is based on
circumstantial evidence but admittedly there is
no complete chain to prove the case of murder by
the appellant to the deceased. Even the learned
4
trial Court after appreciating the testimony ofP.W.-1, 2 and 3 the daughter, wife and son-in-
law of the deceased respectively has come to the
finding that though these witnesses have
deposed that the deceased went away stating
that he was going to Gopal Ram @ Jhupara but
whether he went to Gopal is not clear and no
witness stated that the deceased was last seen
with Gopal Ram. Furthermore, it is not a case of
last seen i.e., the appellant was last seen with the
deceased. But even recording such finding the
learned trial court has come to the conclusion
that it is a case of circumstantial evidence,
therefore, the impugned order requires
interference by this Court.
IV. In the impugned order itself, it has come that the
only evidence which proves the case of the
prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt is the
statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. to the effect
that the deceased was last seen with Nandlal
Yadav and thereafter he was found dead. But
solely on this basis the accused/appellant cannot
be awarded sentence for life.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the backdrop of
aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment of
5
conviction and order of sentence since is not based upon
cogent evidence and as such it cannot be said that the
prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all
reasonable doubt.
Submission of the learned APP for the State:
11. Per Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of State has defended the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence taking the
ground that the impugned judgment has been passed
based upon the testimony of witnesses who have
supported the prosecution version.
12. Submission has been made that the hands of
appellant-Nandlal Yadav is clear in the murder of the
victim Chattar Yadav, as per the testimony available on
record. The appellant-Nandlal Yadav intentionally having
sufficient reason killed Chattar Yadav in the fateful night
and threw the dead body at lonely place to screen
himself.
13. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid
ground has submitted that the prosecution has been able
to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable
doubt.
Analysis
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,
perused the documents available on record and the
6
testimony of witnesses as also the finding recorded by
learned trial Court in the impugned order.
15. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid factual aspect
vis-à-vis argument advanced on behalf of parties, is now
proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
by formulating following questions to be answered by this
Court:
(I).Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of
the appellant for the charges leveled against him?
(II).Whether order of conviction can be passed solely on the
basis of statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and
can such a statement be considered to substantiate
evidence to support a conviction on its own?
(III).Whether the trial Court committed any error in
convicting the appellants and sentencing them beyond all
reasonable doubts?
16. Since all the issues are inter-linked with each other
and as such they are being taken together by taking into
consideration the facts of the given case including the
testimony of witnesses.
17. This Court, in order to answer the issues framed by
this Court, first deems it fit and proper to go through the
testimony of witnesses examined by prosecution. For ready
reference, the extract of their testimony is discussed
hereunder as.
7
18. P.W.-1, Keshiya Devi, the daughter of the deceased.
She has stated that in the night between Friday and
Saturday, her father returned after doing labour work
from Godda. She told him that the she-goat was missing.
He told to give him a lathi, he would go and inquire
about the she-goat. He returned after making search and
stated that Jhupara had killed the she-goat.
19. After taking meal her father went to the house of
Jhupara but he did not return, in the night. On the
morning his dead body was found at a tard [barren land].
She believed that her father was killed by Jhupara,
Shankar, Mahabir and others. She also stated that prior
to this occurrence Nandlal Yadav, Manilal and son of
Jhupara had stolen bicycle in which they were fined
Rs.5000/- in Panchayati and it was said that if they
commit same mistake in future, they would be fined
Rs.10000.
20. In cross-examination P.W. 1 has stated that before her
father returned the she-goat was missing. She also stated
that there was Barat in her village on that night and
there was also Kirtan [prayer] going on in her village at
the temple. She also stated at paragraph 4 that her
brother came and reported that her father was killed and
thrown at tard [barren land].
8
21. P.W.-2, Champa Devi, is the wife of the deceased and
also the informant of the case. She has deposed that the
occurrence took place one and half years ago. Her she-
goat was missing and her husband went to search out
the she-goat. He came to know that she-goat was killed
in the house of Gopal. She also stated that after taking
meal her husband again went to search the she-goat.
She also stated that there was marriage in her village
and also a Kirtan going on that night.
22. She stated that she and others members of her family
thought that her husband was engaged either in Kirtan
or marriage. On the following day the dead body of her
husband was found. She could gather that her husband
was killed by Gopal, Manilal, Mahabir, Shnakr, Nandlal
and Dibha. She also stated that she gave report to the
police. In para-4 she stated that her son went towards
river and saw the dead body.
23. P.W.-3-Tulsi Yadav, has deposed that the deceased
was his brother-in-law. He also stated that the
Investigating Officer prepared inquest report on which,
he gave L.T.I. He also stated that the Investigating Officer
seized Baithi (implements to chop off vegetable and meat)
and dagger. He also stated that the earth was also taken
from the place where the murder was committed. He also
stated that from the house of Jhupara the hairs of the
9
she-goat sticked to plastic sheet, Chhevani (sickle) and
Baithi were seized, for which seizure list was prepared
over which he also gave his L.T.I. He came to the place of
occurrence after he was informed by his Bhagina.
24. P.W.-4 is Bishnu Yadav. He is son of the deceased. He
has stated that when his father returned after working,
he was informed that the she-goat was missing. Then his
father went to search the she-goat. He could gather that
the she-goat was killed by Jhupara, Mahabir Ram, and
Shankar Ram. After taking meal his father went to the
house of Jhupara. In the night he did not return. On the
following day, when he went to river side to answer the
call of nature, he found the dead body of his father. He
found injury on the dead body. He could gather that his
father was killed by Jhupara Ram, Manilal, Mahabir
Ram, Nandlal Yadav, Jhokar Rai and Dibha. In his cross-
examination he has stated that he did not see who killed.
25. P.W.-5 is the brother of the deceased. He also stated
that his brother was killed. He also stated that when the
wife of his brother stated that the she-goat was missing,
he went to search the she-goat. He also stated that his
brother came to know whereabouts of the she-goat, then
he took meal and went to locate the same, but he did not
return and he was found killed.
10
26. P.W.-6-Dr. K. Choudhary is the doctor, who
conducted post-mortem of the deceased. He stated that
he did post-mortem examination on 05-05-1996 on the
dead body. He found one penetrating injury over
epigastric area of abdomen and one lacerated wound over
the left shoulder 3.5 cm X 3 c.m. x 3 cm. He also found
multiple incised wound 10 in number on the side of
neck, chin, left mandibular area and chest. He also
found incised wound over left chick. He found all the
injuries antemortem in nature.
27. P.W.-7, Sunil Mandal has also stated that the victim
was killed. He became hostile to the prosecution. He
denied to have stated before the Investigating Officer that
he prepared and sold wine. He also denied to have stated
to the Investigating Officer that in the night occurrence
the deceased Chattar Yadav and Nandlal Yadav had come
to him and demanded wine. He also denied to have
questioned them why they were moving in such a night
on which they stated that the she-goat was missing. He
also denied to have stated that after taking wine both left
the place. In para-3 he stated that gave statement before
Magistrate. He also stated that he was assaulted by
Investigating Officer. He stated in his examination-in-
chief that he gave statement before Magistrate that in the
night of 3-5-96 at 11.00 P.M. the deceased Chattar Yadav
11
and Nandlal Yadav came to him to search out the she-
goat. He also stated before the Magistrate in the court
that on the following day he came to know that Chattar
Yadav was killed.
28. P.W.-8-is the Investigating Officer of the case, who
has stated that at paragraph 7 that Sunil Mandal [PW 7]
gave statement before him that he was preparing and
selling wine. He also stated that on the occurrence day,
the deceased Chattar Yadav and Nandlal Yadav had come
to him at 11.00 P.M. in the night and demanded wine
and to give wine. When Sunil Mandal inquired the
deceased stated that the she-goat missing.
29. Learned counsel for the appellant has made
submission that it is a case where there is no eye witness
to the occurrence and only on the basis of surmises and
conjectures, and even as per the prosecution the only
basis of passing of judgment conviction is the statement
recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. to the effect that the deceased
was last seen with Nandlal Yadav and thereafter he was
found dead. But, solely on that basis, the appellant
cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC. Further submission has been made that
the judgment of conviction is neither based on
circumstantial evidence nor any chain of circumstances
is complete so as to prove the case of murder.
12
30. While defending the impugned order, learned State
counsel has argued that from the testimonies of the
witnesses in totality, it is evident that hands of Nandlal
Yadav is clear in the murder of the victim Chattar Yadav
and thus the prosecution has been able to prove the case
beyond all reasonable doubt.
31. This Court on the basis of aforesaid facts, the
testimonies of the witnesses and submissions advance by
the parties has to see whether order of conviction can be
passed solely on the basis of statement made under Section
164 Cr.P.C. and can such a statement be considered to
substantiate evidence to support a conviction on its own.
32. This Court deems fit and proper to first referred
Section 164 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
“164. Recording of confessions and statements.
(1)Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may,
whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any
confession or statement made to him in the course of an
investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for
the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the
commencement of the inquiry or trial :[Provided that any
confession or statement made under this sub-Section may
also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the
presence of the advocate of the person accused of an offence
:Provided further that no confession shall be recorded by a
police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been
conferred under any law for the time being in
force.] [Substituted by the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section 13, for the
Proviso. Prior to its substitution, the proviso read as under :-
[Provided that no confession shall be recorded by a police
13
officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred
under any law for the time being in force].]
(2)The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to
the person making it that he is not bound to make a
confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as
evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall not record
any such confession unless, upon questioning the person
making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made
voluntarily.
(3)If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person
appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing
to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the
detention of such person in police custody.
(4)Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner
provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an
accused person and shall be signed by the person making
the confession; and the Magistrate shall make a
memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect
:”I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a
confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may
make, may be used as evidence against him and I believe
that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my
presence and was read over to the person making it and
admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true
account of the statement made by
him.(Signed)A.B.Magistrate.”
(5)Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-
section (1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter
provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of
the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case;
and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the
person whose statement is so recorded.
(5A)[ (a) In cases punishable under section 354, section 354A,
section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) of section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB,
section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA,
section 376DB,] [Inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,
2013 ] section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code,
the Judicial Magistrate shall record the statement of the
person against whom such offence has been committed in the
manner prescribed in sub-section (5), as soon as the
14
commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the
police:Provided that if the person making the statement is
temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled,
the Magistrate shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a
special educator in recording the statement:Provided further
that if the person making the statement is temporarily or
permanently mentally or physically disabled, the statement
made by the person, with the assistance of an interpreter or a
special educator, shall be video-graphed.
(b)A statement recorded under clause (a) of a person, who is
temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled,
shall be considered a statement in lieu of examination-in-
chief, as specified in section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 such that the maker of the statement can be cross-
examined on such statement, without the need for recording
the same at the time of trial.]
(6)The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under
this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the
case is to be inquired into or tried.”
33. Thus, it is evident that Section 164 Cr.P.C outlines the
procedure for recording statements and confessions by a
Magistrate during the investigation. While a statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is admissible in
court, it is primarily used to evaluate the credibility of
the witness who made the statement. Such statement
can be used to support or discredit the witness’s
testimony in court, but it cannot be the sole basis of
conviction, rather, to secure a conviction, the prosecution
needs to present additional evidence that corroborates
the statement and establishes the guilt of the deceased
beyond a reasonable doubt.
15
34. It is now no more res integra that the contents of
Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement are not substantive
evidence and if the Court has to consider its contents,
then the author of the contents, the said prosecution
witness, ought to be confronted with it and the
provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act complied
with.
35. The Learned Trial Court was in error on this facet and
failed to appreciate the legal perspective and provision
correctly. The Court cannot reach an independent
conclusion of the contents of any document without
proof of its contents, as concluded by the Learned Trial
Court in its observation regarding Section 145 of the
Evidence Act and Section 164 Cr.P.C. extracted supra. It
is an elementary requirement of the Evidence Act that
the contents need to be proved in terms of the provisions
of the Act.
36. Reference, in this regard be made to the law laid down
by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R. Shaji vs. State
of Kerala [(2013) 14 SCC 266] wherein it has been held
as follows:
“26. Evidence given in a court under oath has great
sanctity, which is why the same is called substantive
evidence. Statements under Section 161 CrPC can be used
only for the purpose of contradiction and statements under
Section 164 CrPC can be used for both corroboration and
contradiction. In a case where the Magistrate has to
16
perform the duty of recording a statement under Section
164 CrPC, he is under an obligation to elicit all information
which the witness wishes to disclose, as a witness who
may be an illiterate, rustic villager may not be aware of the
purpose for which he has been brought, and what he must
disclose in his statements under Section 164 CrPC. Hence,
the Magistrate should ask the witness explanatory
questions and obtain all possible information in relation to
the said case.
27. So far as the statement of witnesses recorded under
Section 164 is concerned, the object is two fold; in the first
place, to deter the witness from changing his stand by
denying the contents of his previously recorded statement;
and secondly, to tide over immunity from prosecution by
the witness under Section 164. A proposition to the effect
that if a statement of a witness is recorded under Section
164, his evidence in court should be discarded, is not at all
warranted.
28. Section 157 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that a
statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC can be relied
upon for the purpose of corroborating statements made by
witnesses in the committal court or even to contradict the
same. As the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine
the witnesses whose statements are recorded under
Section 164 CrPC, such statements cannot be treated as
substantive evidence.”
37. Thus, it can safely be said that conviction cannot be solely
based on the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
However, such a statement can be used to corroborate or
contradict the witness’s testimony in court, but, it is not
considered substantive evidence to support a conviction on
its own.
38. In essence, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement can be a
valuable piece of evidence but it requires supporting
17
evidence from other sources to form the basis of
conviction.
39. Now coming to the factual aspect of the instant case,
admittedly there is no eye witnesses to the occurrence
and there is only availability of statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C, wherein it has been stated that
deceased was lastly seen with the present appellant in
the night.
40. The case is solely based on circumstances evidence
and on the last seen theory, over which, the prosecution
failed and solely on the basis of statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the present appellant has
been convicted.
41. In the aforesaid context it requires to refer herein that
the law on the last-seen-together evidence is well-settled.
In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that once it is proved that the deceased was
seen lastly in the company of the accused and
immediately thereafter the dead body is recovered, the
law presumes that it was the accused who has
committed the crime, but this piece of evidence requires
corroboration. There are of course exceptions to this
theory and there may be circumstances under which on
the basis of the last-seen-together evidence conviction of
an accused cannot be recorded; one of such
18
circumstances is the time-gap between the last-seen-
together and recovery of the dead body. In the case of
Navaneethakrishnan v. State reported in (2018) 16
SCC 161, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
which reads as under:
“22. …… It is a settled legal position that the law
presumes that it is the person, who was last seen with
the deceased, would have killed the deceased and the
burden to rebut the same lies on the accused to prove
that they had departed. Undoubtedly, the last seen
theory is an important event in the chain of
circumstances that would completely establish and/or
could point to the guilt of the accused with some
certainty. However, this evidence alone cannot
discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires
corroboration.”
42. Further it requires to refer herein that it is well settled
that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial
evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests. Firstly,
the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established. Secondly, these circumstances should be of
a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt
of the accused. Thirdly, the circumstances, taken
cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there
is no escape from the conclusion that within all human
probability the crime was committed by the accused and
none else. That is to say, the circumstances should be
19
incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis
save that of the accused’s guilt, reference in this regard
may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandmal v. State of
Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 621.
43. It requires to refer herein that the conviction of a
person can only be made if the charge has been proved
beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts and if there is
any doubt in the prosecution version then the benefit
must be given to the accused persons. Reference is made
to the judgment Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vrs.
State of U.P., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 454, wherein, at
paragraph-22, it has been held as under:-
“22. The amount of doubt which the Court would
entertain regarding the complicity of the appellants
in this case is much more than the level of
reasonable doubt. We are aware that acquitting the
accused in a case of this nature is not a matter of
satisfaction for all concerned. At the same time we
remind ourselves of the time-tested rule that
acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to
conviction of an innocent person. Unless the
prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be
passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot
afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong
liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of
certainty that the appellants were the real culprits.
We really entertain doubt about the involvement of
the appellants in the crime.”
20
44. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka,
reported in (2017) 13 SCC 98, has held at paragraph-26
as under:-
“26. Having gone through the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses and the findings recorded by
the High Court we feel that the High Court has failed
to understand the fact that the guilt of the accused
has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and this
is a classic case where at each and every stage of
the trial, there were lapses on the part of the
investigating agency and the evidence of the
witnesses is not trustworthy which can never be a
basis for conviction. The basic principle of criminal
jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be
innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable
doubt.”
45. Further, the principle of ‘benefit of doubt’ belongs
exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine
doctrine of ‘benefit of doubt’ can be invoked when there
is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused,
reference in this regard may be made to the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State
of Haryana Vrs. Bhagirath & Ors., reported in (1999)
5 SCC 96, wherein, it has been held at paragraph-7 as
under: –
“7. The High Court had failed to consider the
implication of the evidence of the two eyewitnesses on
the complicity of Bhagirath particularly when the High
Court found their evidence reliable. The benefit of doubt
was given to Bhagirath “as a matter of abundant
caution”. Unfortunately, the High Court did not point out
21
the area where there is such a doubt. Any restraint by
way of abundant caution need not be entangled with
the concept of the benefit of doubt. Abundant caution is
always desirable in all spheres of human activity. But
the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to
criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit
of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable
doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the
reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind
entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that
the accused might not have committed the offence,
which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of
the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage
to be administered at every segment of the evidence,
but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the
final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if
the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains
doubt regarding the guilt of the accused.”
46. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka (Supra) at
paragraph 32 and 33 has held as under:-
“32. — — The minor variations and contradictions in
the evidence of the eyewitnesses will not tilt the
benefit of doubt in favour of the accused but when
the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses proves to be fatal to the prosecution case
then those contradictions go to the root of the matter
and in such cases the accused gets the benefit of
doubt.
33. It is the duty of the Court to consider the
trustworthiness of evidence on record. As said by
Bentham, “witnesses are the eyes and ears of
justice.— –
47. It needs to refer herein that The Hon’ble Apex Court,
in the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of
Gujarat reported in (2002) 3 SCC 57 has laid down the
22
principle that the golden thread which runs through the
web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the
case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to
the accused should be adopted, for reference, paragraph
6 thereof requires to be referred herein which reads
hereunder as :-
“6. ——The golden thread which runs through the web
of administration of justice in criminal case is that if
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the
case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to
the accused should be adopted. –”
48. It needs to refer herein before laying down the
aforesaid view, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 has already laid down the
same view at paragraph 163 which is required to be
referred which read hereunder as:
“163. We then pass on to another important point
which seems to have been completely missed by the
High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence
two possibilities are available or open, one which goes
in favour of the prosecution and the other which
benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly
entitled to the benefit of doubt.—”
49. Thus, as per law laid down in the case laws, as cited
above, and as per the discussion as above, this Court is
23
of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove
the charge said to be beyond reasonable doubt.
50. The circumstances of this case only create suspicion
against the present appellant and suspicion, by itself,
however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the
place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the
accused, thus, or paucity of any clear, cogent and
unshakeable evidence against aforesaid appellant his
conviction and sentence are absolutely unwarranted.
51. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 22nd
April, 1998 and order of sentence dated 24th April, 1998,
passed by learned 1st Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No.33 of 1997/19 of 1997
is hereby quashed and set aside.
52. In consequence thereof, the instant appeal stands
allowed and the appellant is acquitted from criminal
liability and discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
53. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Alankar / A.F.R.
24