Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1530 OF 2004

Dauna Devi                 ….Appellant  

Versus

State of Bihar ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Patna  

High  Court  confirming conviction  of  the  appellant  who faced  trial  along  with  one  Ran  

Lakhan Rai for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section  

201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’). Each was directed to undergo R.I. for  

life for the first offence and two years for the later offence.  

2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

Siya Devi, the informant to this case and the mother of the deceased was married with Ram  

Lakhan Rai and from their wedlock the deceased Bhikhani Kumari was born. Thereafter  

her husband (Ram Lakhan Rai) fell  in bad company and meted inhuman treatment to the  

informant, as a result of which she went to her father's place.  In spite of the efforts made by  

the informant, there was no effect on her husband and finally  on 9.2.1981 accused Ram  

Lakhan Rai threw her out of the house. Accused Ram Lakhan Rai married Dauna Devi, the

appellant.  Then  the  informant  filed  a  criminal  case  in  which  Ram  Lakhan  Rai  had  

absconded. The informant had also filed a case of maintenance under Section 125. Cr.P.C.,  

against her husband and the appellant No.1 was ordered to pay maintenance but he did not  

comply  with  the  order  and  the  informant  filed  a  Misc.  case  for  its  execution.  Ext.9  is  

certified copy of the order of Misc. case No.8 of 1981 (Siya Devi vs. Ram Lakhan Rai) under  

Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thereafter accused Ram Lakhan Rai agreed to keep the informant and  

her daughter and he started keeping them and he pressurized the informant to withdraw the  

case which she had instituted. When the informant did not withdraw the case, accused Ram  

Lakhan  Rai  instituted  a  case  on  her  witnesses  Dr.  Ambika  Singh  and  Shital  Sah  for  

abducting  the  informant  and  her  daughter  to  put  pressure  on  her.  On  26.7.1984  the  

informant went to her father's place and she left her daughter Bhikhani Kumari (deceased)  

in  the house of  her husband.   On 31.7.1984 one Kishori  Kumari informed her that her  

husband had either concealed her daughter, somewhere or murdered  her.  The informant  

came to  her husband's house and searched for her daughter. On enquiry, she learnt from  

Bishuni Numar, Kishori Kumar (PW-4) and Ram Chandra Sah (PW-14) that the accusd  

Ram Lakhan Rai, Bindeshwar Thakur, Ram Ekbal Rai and Mahadeo were talking among  

themselves to remove Bhikani so that the case which had been instituted for kidnapping may  

not fail. Ram Prasad Rai and Ram Lochan Rai had seen the accused taking away a child  

aged about ten years alongwith others and Dauna Devi was following them and on enquiry  

Ram Lakhan Rai had told that he was taking away a child aged about ten years alongwith  

others and Dauna Devi was following them and on inquiry Ram Lakhan Rai told that he  

was taking Bhikani or curing her of snake bite and thereafter Bhikhani was not seen in the  

village.

The trial court held that there were circumstances which clearly established the accusation.  

Accordingly, the conviction was made. In appeal, the High Court concurred with he view of  

the trial court and upheld the conviction.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the only factor  

which the trial court and the High Court have taken note of is the alleged recovery of the  

dead body of the child from the house.  The trial  court and the High Court erroneously  

observed  that  the  house  where  the  dead  body  was  recovered  belonged  to  two  accused  

persons.  In the prosecution version from beginning is that the present appellant was having  

illicit relationship with the other accused. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the  

judgment of the High Court.

In a case of circumstantial evidence it has to be conclusively established that the chain of  

circumstances lead to the only inference, that of guilt of the accused ruling out the possibility  

of involvement of any other person to be the author of the crime. In the instant case there  

was no evidence to show that appellant was the owner of the house and/or was staying in the  

house at the time of alleged incident.  No question was put in this regard in the examination  

under Section 313 Cr.P.C.   

In the instant case the circumstance highlighted by the trial Court and the High  

Court  does  not  meet  the  requisite  standard  applicable  to  cases  based  on circumstantial  

evidence. All other circumstances including so called confession were disbelieved by the trial  

court and the High Court.

Therefore, the conviction of the appellant as recorded cannot be maintained.  The conviction  

is accordingly set aside.  The appeal is allowed.  The appellant be released from custody  

forthwith if not required in any other case.   

……..……………………….J     (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………….............J.

(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)               

New Delhi, April 29, 2009