Jharkhand HC Overturns Death Sentence Due to Sketchy Evidence

In a most clear indictment while seriously frowning on the most casual manner in which the death sentence was awarded by the Trial Court by relying on sketchy evidence and contradictory versions, the Jharkhand High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled State of Jharkhand vs Anand Kumar Dangi in Death Reference No.6 of 2023 With Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1707 of 2023  [Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 21.08.2023 and order of sentence dated 04.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI cum Special Judge, C.A.W. Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 162 of 2019] that was initially reserved on 12.09.2024 and then saw how was finally pronounced on 19.09.2024 has very rightly set aside the conviction of a man who was accused of murdering his wife and 15-month-old infant. We need to note here that the Jharkhand High Court was hearing a Death Reference that had been preferred by the State and the Criminal Appeal that had been preferred by the Appellant which stemmed out of the judgment of the Trial Court of Hazaribag where the appellant had been convicted and sentenced to death by the Sessions Court of Hazaribag under Section 302/34 of the IPC. The Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ananda Sen and Hon’ble Mr Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary rightly wondered aloud that, “It is surprising how on these contradictory versions and sketchy evidence, learned trial court convicted the appellant and awarded death sentence.”
No doubt, the Trial Courts now definitely need to be more careful and cautious in awarding death sentence and should refrain from awarding it unless the evidence is quite clear! Of course, it is beyond a straw of doubt that this is essentially what constitutes the bottom-line of this notable judgment! No denying or disputing it!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary for a Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ananda Sen and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Death Reference on behalf of the State and the Criminal Appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant arise out of the judgment and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.162 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death along with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302/34 of the IPC. He has also been convicted under Section 315 of the IPC and sentenced to RI of ten years, fine of Rs. 5000/-, and in default SI of six months.”
As we see, the Division Bench then discloses in para 2 that, “Prosecution case is about cold-blooded murder of a pregnant lady and her infant child allegedly done by the appellant, who happens to be husband of the deceased lady.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 that, “Informant is the father of the deceased. As per the FIR, deceased Angira Kumari was married to the appellant- Anand Kumar in 2014. There was normal conjugal relationship for some time and thereafter, she was subjected to cruelty in reference to dowry demand. In the meantime, her husband developed intimacy with some other girl which was opposed to by the deceased. As a result, she was assaulted and she returned to her parental home. After much persuasion, she went back to her matrimonial home. For last two years, father of appellant, Suresh Dangi had developed illicit relationship with one Rangina Devi and when this was opposed by her, she was extended life threat. On the date of incidence on 13.12.2018 at 7 O’ clock in the evening, deceased had telephonically informed that Rangina Devi had abused and threatened her. On 14.12.2018 at 1.15 a.m. on, her brother-in-law (Devar) informed the informant on mobile that deceased was missing. In the morning at 9 a.m., when they reached there, she saw her dead body lying. The dead body of her infant child (15 months old), was found in the nearby well.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench then enunciates in para 4 that, “On the basis of the written report, Chouparan P.S. Case No.312/18 was registered under Sections 302/34 of the IPC against this appellant, Manoj Dangi, Suresh Dangi and Rangina. Police on investigation, submitted charge sheet only against this appellant and he was put on trial for offence under Section 302/34 and 315/34 of the IPC, keeping investigation pending against others.”
Do note, the Division Bench then rightly notes in para 8 that, “Homicidal death of Angira Devi and her infant child is proved by the Post Mortem Examination Reports (P1 & P2). External examination revealed that Angira Devi had suffered fracture of skull bone over occipital area, lacerated wound measuring 1” x 1” with deep penetration present. At the time of death deceased was pregnant and carrying 28-30 week male dead foetus. Death was due to Neurogenic shock by hard and blunt substance. Her infant child Anshika Kumari died due to asphyxia by ante mortem drowning. Post Mortem Report speaks volumes about the manner in which homicidal death was caused.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench then notes in para 9 stating that, “On the author of this diabolical crime, there is no direct eye witness and the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution evidence discloses following circumstances: –
I. Deceased was married to the appellant in 2014. There was marital discord of the appellant with the deceased on account of his illicit relationship with some other girl. Later, the matter was resolved. P.W. 1 in para-11.
II. Deceased was subjected to cruelty in reference to dowry demand after 1-2 years of the marriage. Appellant, his father Suresh Dangi, and brother Manoj Dangi used to assault the deceased in reference to dowry demand. P.W.-5 in para-4, has deposed that the deceased was assaulted by the appellant and in-laws in reference to dowry demand. P.W. 3 in para 5 and 6 has stated about the marital discord and illicit relationship of the appellant and his father, but he has not whispered anything regarding dowry demand.
III.  Suresh Dangi had illicit relationship with one Rangina Devi and when this was opposed by the deceased, she used to be abused and assaulted and threatened by him. P.W. 5 in para-5.
IV.  A day before the incidence Rangina Devi, Suresh Dangi, Appellant and Manoj Dangi had abused and assaulted her. This was informed to P.W. 5 by the deceased. P.W. 5 in para 6.
V. Appellant was arrested and on his disclosure statement, the weapon of offence was recovered. P.W. 5 in para 11 and P.W. 6- I.O. in para-9 have also deposed in the same line.
VI.    As per the CDR of the mobile used by the appellant bearing SIM No. 8862958832, tower location of the appellant showed him to be present near his house. P.W. 6 in para 19-20 has also deposed in the same line.
VII. He was in constant touch with his wife on her mobile the fateful night.
VIII. Motive of offence: Deceased opposed the illicit relationship of the appellant with one Pushpa Kumari and of Suresh Dangi with Rangina Devi.
IX. P.W. 4 has stated that there was marital discord, but the reason for it has been stated by him, was mainly the illicit relationship of the appellant with one girl and his father with Rangina Devi.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 10 that, “On close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it will transpire that these circumstances have not been properly proved and even if it is assumed to be true to some extent they do not complete the chain from which an inference can be drawn that it was the appellant and none else who committed the crime.”
It cannot be glossed over that the Division Bench points out in para 11 that, “There are three propositions that have been advanced on behalf of the prosecution. The first is that there was a dowry demand after 1 – 2 years of the marriage, 2nd is that appellant had extra marital relationship with one Pushpa Kumari, opposed by the deceased and 3rd is that threat extended by Rangina Devi on the very same evening of the incidence who was the paramour of the father-in-law of the deceased. As far as dowry death is concerned, neither the charge has been framed nor this allegation has been followed up during trial.”
It also certainly cannot be lost sight of that the Division Bench lays bare in para 12 that, “As stated by P.W. 5 deceased was abused and assaulted by Suresh Dangi (father of appellant) and Rangina Devi, but these persons were not put on trial as the investigation was kept pending against them and charge sheet was not submitted. P.W. 2 is the brother of deceased and it has been deposed by him that both the appellant and his father had threatened the deceased.”
Notably, the Division Bench clearly states in para 13 that, “Thus, from the prosecution case it appears that apart from appellant, there were at least two persons who nursed grievance against the deceased and had abused, assaulted and threatened her. They were Suresh Dangi and Rangina Devi whose illicit relationship was opposed and objected by the deceased. On the very same day of incidence as per the FIR and the testimony of the informant, it was Rangina who had extended life threat to her. Thus, circumstance do not unerringly establish that it was the appellant who had committed the offence.”
Quite glaringly, the Division Bench then lays bare in para 14 mentioning that, “The allegation of recovery of spade on the disclosure statement made by this appellant, is falsified by the deposition of P.W. 1 in para 6, who is a seizure list witness and has deposed that from near the dead body, the spade had been seized. The seizure list is Exhibit 6 from which it will transpires that the said seizure was made on 15.12.2018 at 15.45 hours, whereas the disclosure statement has not even been proved. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) has deposed in para 3 that on 14.12.2018, the dead body was found in a mustard field, the inquest report of which was made. Even the inquest report has not been proved and brought on record. P.W. 3 has also deposed that police had seized the spade and blood-stained soil from near the place where the dead body was found. When the spade had been lying near the dead body, the prosecution case of it have been seized on the disclosure statement does not hold ground, for the reason that dead body was found on 14.12.2018, whereas the seizure was made on 15.12.2018. Thus, circumstance no. V is not proved.”
Quite strikingly, the Division Bench then observes in para 15 wondering and holding that, “As far as circumstance nos. VI and VII are concerned, it is amazing that neither the call detail report has been brought on record nor it has been proved as per Section 65 B of the Evidence Act. It is surprising that learned trial court has accepted and acted upon the oral testimony of Investigating Officer to prove the tower location of the appellant to be in the village on the date and time of incidence and of his being in constant touch with the deceased on the fateful night. The learned trial court appears to have lost sight of the fact that electronic records produced for the inspection of the court come within the meaning of evidence and when the original is not proved, the print out like CDR, is to be proved as per Section 65 B of the Evidence Act. Contents of such record cannot be proved by oral evidence. In the absence of the proof, circumstance nos.V and VI cannot be legally considered.”
Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench mandates in para 16 postulating that, “What is apparent from the above discussion is that the prosecution case has crumbled like a house of card. Neither the circumstances have been proved which can lead to a conclusion that the appellant was complicit in offence, nor any consistent prosecution version has come which can be relied upon. There is no evidence of last seen. This is how a crime of a most gruesome nature has been investigated and prosecution conducted during trial. Prosecution proposes that appellant was in the village on the night of evidence, but neither any oral nor electronic evidence being led in support of it. An evening before the incidence, the informant has received a call from the deceased that she was abused, assaulted and threatened by Rangina Devi, but surprisingly the charge sheet was not submitted against her. There was evidence of past marital discord, but there is no evidence that the appellant had extended life threat to the deceased. It is surprising how on these contradictory versions and sketchy evidence, learned trial court convicted the appellant and awarded death sentence. Judgment of conviction and sentence is not sustainable.”
Most remarkably, the Division Bench propounds in para 17 stating that, “There is a duty cast on the trial courts to exercise greater degree of scrutiny care and circumspection while awarding death sentence [See (2021) 13 SCC 716]. The court cannot remain a moot spectator but should be alive and alert during criminal trial. Even if prosecution omits inadvertently or deliberately, to bring on record all relevant materials, courts on its own stop prosecution and seek clarification. [(2013) 16 SCC 173].”
Finally and far most significantly, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 18 that, “The manner in which investigation, prosecution and trial has been conducted, we have no option but to set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. The Death Reference is accordingly answered in the negative. Criminal Appeal is allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.”
In conclusion, we thus see that the Jharkhand High Court very rightly acquits the man who was accused of murdering his wife and infant. The manner in which investigation, prosecution and trial has been conducted is far from satisfactory. The Ranchi High Court very rightly gives a rap on the knuckles on the Trial Court for relying exclusively on the contradictory versions and sketchy evidence to award death penalty which just cannot be justified from any angle!
In other words, the benefit of doubt must always definitely go to the accused which not only the Trial Courts but even the High Courts and the Apex Court must also always bear in mind while dealing with such cases before awarding death penalty which should be awarded only when the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt so that no innocent is hanged wrongly and the prosecution version is consistent on which reliance can be placed safely. No doubt,  the Trial Courts Judges must ensure that Trial Courts where the recording and examination of evidence and witnesses is done quite in detail is done most meticulously and also must pay heed to what constitutes the essence of this notable judgment that, “There is a duty case on the Trial Courts to exercise greater degree of scrutiny, care and circumspection while awarding death sentence.” There can be definitely just no denying or disputing it!