Harishchandra Prasad Mani & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr  Insc 73 (31
B. Sinha & Markandey Katju (Arising out of Slp( (Criminal) No. 3934 of 2006)
Markandey Katju, J.
appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Jharkhand High Court
dated 6/5.5.2006 passed in Writ Petition (Cr) No.
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
appears that one Suresh Chandra Sinha, respondent No. 2 in this appeal, filed
Criminal Complaint being Complaint Case No. 946/2001 before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hazaribagh, which was sent by the CJM under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
to the Police directing it to register a case and investigate it. Accordingly,
the Police instituted an FIR being Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 311/2001 under
Sections 302, 201, 328 and 120-B IPC against the appellants.
allegation in the FIR in short was that the son of the informant Rajnish Kumar
was married to accused Monika Mani (appellant No. 2 herein), and she had
developed illicit relationship with the accused named in the FIR namely, Prabhat
Kumar Srivastava. The accused Monika, daughter-in-law of the informant was in
the habit of spending money unnecessarily and she used to put undue pressure on
her husband for wasteful expenditure. The son of the informant was of a very
docile nature and he could not object to such an act of his wife because his
wife used to create scenes in a state of anger and she also used to insult her
husband off and on.
further alleged in the FIR that the son of the informant also caught his wife
and his paramour red-handed in some compromising position and, thereafter, it
is alleged that the accused persons by hatching conspiracy committed murder of
his son at Ramgarh and brought the dead body to Biharsharif with a false death
certificate and, then, the dead body was cremated at Patna. The informant
alleged in the FIR that he came to know subsequently that his son, in fact, did
not die due to illness or disease rather he was murdered by the accused persons
and then the informant lodged the case before the Police against the accused
investigation, the Police submitted a final report which was accepted by the
learned Magistrate on 20.12.2002, and no Criminal Revision or petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed against the order of the learned Magistrate
accepting the final report. Instead, it seems that an application was filed
subsequently on 14.5.2003 on which the learned CJM recorded the statement of
the applicant and his witnesses, and thereafter passed the impugned order on
12.4.2005 taking cognizance of the offence and issuing summons to the
the aforesaid order taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate, a petition was
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C which was dismissed by the impugned order and
hence this appeal.
have carefully perused the entire record placed before us and find that there
is not even an iota of evidence or any material on record against the
appellants. It is true that at this stage it is not necessary that the
complainant or prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but at
least there must be some material on the basis of which cognizance is taken and
summon is issued. Cognizance cannot be taken merely on suspicion as has
evidently been done in this case.
death certificate dated 12.10.2001 in respect of the deceased Rajnish Kumar was
issued by the Medical Officer of Brindavan Hospital & Research Centre, Hazaribagh,
which states that the cause of death is Cardio Respiratory Arrest.
counsel for the complainant submitted that the deceased had no history of
cardiac problems. It is well known even persons with no history of heart
problem can suffer a heart attack and can die. Moreover in the present case the
learned counsel for the appellant has shown us the medical reports of the
cardiologist of Patna which show that the deceased Rajnish
Kumar was a patient of severe hypertension (blood pressure) for a very long
period. Hence, it cannot be said that Rajnish Kumar had no medical problems
which could lead to his heart attack. It is well known that blood pressure,
diabetes, is a silent killer.
complainant has alleged that Rajnish Kumar was killed by poisoning, but there
is no iota of material that any poison was administered to Rajnish Kumar. There
is nothing in the medical evidence showing that the dead body of Rajnish Kumar
had any poisoning in it. It appears that Rajnish Kumar had vomited in the
hospital when he was admitted, but the Police did not take any sample of the
vomit for sending it to some laboratory for chemical analysis where it could
have been established whether he had been given any poison. It appears to us
that cognizance has been taken on pure conjectures and surmises.
well-settled by a series of decisions of this Court that cognizance cannot be
taken unless there is at least some material indicating the guilt of the
accused vide R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388, State of Haryana
vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) Suppl (1) SCC 335, Janta Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4
SCC 305, Raghubir Saran (Dr) vs. State of Bihar (1964) 2 SCR 336, State of
Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works
Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122.
present case, there is not even an iota of material indicating the guilt of the
accused persons. It is true that at the stage of taking cognizance adequacy of
evidence will not be seen by the Court, but there has to be at least some
material implicating the accused, and cognizance cannot be taken merely on the
basis of suspicion as it appears to have been done in the present case. To take
a contrary view would only lead to harassment of people.
doubt, it has been alleged in the complaint that the wife of the deceased was
having an affair with accused No. 2, but this itself is only a suspicion and
cannot be the basis of a conviction. Similarly, the fact that the in-laws of
the deceased did not take part in his cremation is not evidence to show their
opinion, since there is no material on the basis of which cognizance was taken,
we quash the order dated 12.4.2005 taking cognizance of the offence.
Resultantly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the
appeal is allowed.