Roopsena Khatun vs State Of West Bengal
- SCC(2011) 13 SCC 303
- Neutral2011 INSC 343
- AIRAIR 2011 SC 2256
- SCR[2011] 5 SCR 982
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The disclosure and pointing out of the corpus delicti by an accused loses evidentiary significance where the physical properties of the body (such as decomposition and buoyancy) make it implausible that it could have remained hidden for the period alleged, and the body would have been visible to anyone in the ordinary course. An extra-judicial confession admitted in evidence where the accused's exact words are not reproduced by any witness, and where no identification or corroboration of the confession is independently established, is of extremely weak evidentiary value and cannot form a reliable basis for conviction, particularly when the circumstances of the alleged confession (such as village reaction) do not support its authenticity. The recovery of an ornamental object from an accused carries no evidentiary weight where the seizure memo contains no details of the place of seizure, the object has not been identified by persons who knew it intimately, and no identification parade was conducted to establish its connection to the deceased. A circumstance of "last seen together" can only have evidentiary significance in a circumstantial evidence case where there is temporal proximity between the time the accused and deceased were last seen together and the time of death; where no time of death has been established by the prosecution and a substantial gap exists between the sighting and the discovery of the body, such circumstance loses its significance. The Sessions Judge is under a duty to exercise his discretion to direct medical examination of an accused who appears to be a minor at the time of the alleged offence, in order to determine exact age, particularly where the evidence suggests the accused was not a major.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ROOPSENA KHATUN ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL ...RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
SIRPURKAR, J.
1. This appeal is filed by an unfortunate orphan girl against the concurrent judgments of the Sessions Court as also the High Court whereby she stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as also under Section 379 IPC for committing theft of a silver chain from the body of deceased.
2. The prosecution case is that accused Roopsena Khatun committed murder of a child called Baby Khatun by drowning her in a pond and also removed the silver chain from her person. It is alleged that on 29.7.1999, Baby Khatun left her house for her grand-mother house and thereafter, there was no trace of the girl. PW3 Abdul Quddus told the father of the deceased that he had seen Baby Khatun following the accused on the previous day at 10 a.m. A search was started for her and ultimately, the accused was apprehended by the villagers on the next day at about 12 noon in the jute field. On being asked, the accused is supposed to have confessed that she committed the murder of Baby Khatun by drowning her in the pond and had also removed the silver chain from her person. The matter was reported to the police. At about 4.45/5 p.m., the police arrived at the scene of occurrence and is stated to have seized the silver chain from the accused.
3. The prosecution relied on the following circumstances. i) The disclosure made by the accused that she had committed the murder and pointed out the body of the deceased from the pond; ii) The extra-judicial confession allegedly made to the witnesses including the father PW1 and some other witnesses; iii) The recovery of silver chain from the accused. iv) Baby Khatun was seen following the accused at 10 A.M. on the earlier day.
4. Insofar as the first circumstance relating to the disclosure of the accused having committed the murder and pointing out the corpus delicti is concerned, both the courts below have held that circumstance as a proof against the accused on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses.
It is a common knowledge that the body could not have remained under the water for 24 hours. The body was bound to be floating. At least from the post-mortem report, it is clear that the body was decomposed. Under such circumstances, we do not think that the body could have ever remained underneath the water level for 24 hours. It was certainly expected to be floating. In that case, it could be seen by anybody. Therefore, such circumstance loses its significance.
5. The second circumstance is about the extra-judicial confession. We can imagine the plight of a poor orphan girl who is described as a frock wearing girl by some of the witnesses and was at the mercy of her grand-mother with whom she was living. The evidence of the extra- judicial confession is of extremely week kind. In this case, the exact words of the accused have not been uttered by any of the witnesses. Again, if there was any suspicion against the accused, the whole village would have pounced upon her and cursed her of having committed the murder.
Under such circumstances, the so called extra-judicial confession made to the witnesses even if they were more than three, would be of no consequence and we would not consider that as an incriminating evidence against the accused.
6. The circumstance of the recovery of the silver chain from the accused is extremely strange. We have seen the seizure memo which does not suggest the place from where the silver chain from the accused was seized. Under such circumstances, it is very difficult for us to hold that the accused was carrying the silver chain on her person. The absence of any detail in the seizure memo regarding the place from where the silver chain was seized or also the oral evidence puts the seizure in extreme suspicion. At any rate, we are not prepared to accept this circumstance particularly because the said silver chain has also not been identified by the PW 1 - father of the deceased . There was no identification parade held regarding the aforesaid silver chain which was an extremely common ornament. Therefore, even that circumstance loses its significance.
7. The last circumstance "last seen" if at all can be used against the accused as a circumstance should have been connected with the time of death. Here is the case when the deceased was seen following the accused at about 10 a.m. on the earlier day whereas the body was found on the next day at about 2.30 p.m.. The prosecution has not fixed the time of the death also. Therefore, there is no proximity between the time when the deceased and the accused were last seen together and the time of the death of the deceased. At least, the prosecution has not been able to establish the same. Therefore, even if that circumstance is viewed as an incriminating evidence, it would be of no significance.
8. The depth of the pond is not shown. In what manner could a small girl like accused have drowned the deceased is also not shown. Considering the short distance between the house of the deceased and the pond, the possibility of the death being accidental cannot be ruled out.
9. The least we feel is that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case of murder against the accused or even for the theft of the silver chain from the person of the deceased.
10. Before we part with this case, we must observe that the accused in her appeal before us has mentioned that she was 15 years of age on the date of incident. At least, three witnesses have described the girl as frock wearing girl. If she was a frock wearing Mohamedan girl, then, obviously, she could not have been a major on the relevant date. In our opinion, the Sessions Judge should have used its discretion which he was supposed to exercise in law and should have sent the accused for medical examination to ascertain her exact age. The Sessions Judge has failed in his duty. The High Court has not adverted to this aspect.
11. Under the circumstances, we do not affirm the judgments of the courts below. We, accordingly, set-aside the judgments of the courts below and allow this appeal.
The accused be released from the jail forthwith if she is not required in any other case.
......................J.
[ V.S. SIRPURKAR ]
......................J.
[ T.S. THAKUR ]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 28, 2011.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free