SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Harishchandra Prasad Mani & Ors.
Vs.
State of Jharkhand and Anr.
Crl.A.No.124 of 2007
(S.B.Sinha and Markandeya Katju, JJ)
31.01.2007
Markandey Katju, J.
S.L.P(Crl.)No.3934 of 2006
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Jharkhand
High Court dated 6/5.5.2006 passed in Writ Petition (Cr) No. 234 of 2005.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. It 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) Code
Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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 Indian Penal
Code, 1860 against the appellants.
5. The 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.
6. It was 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 persons.
7. After 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 Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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 accused-appellants.
8. Against 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.
9. We 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.
10. The 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.
11. Learned 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.
12. The 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.
13. It is 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  , State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal  Janta Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary  7, Raghubir
Saran (Dr) vs. State of Bihar  , State of Karnataka vs. M.
Devendrappa1 and Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haque  .
14. In the 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.
15. No 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 guilt.
16. In our 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.
Judgment Referred.
1(2002) 3 SCC 0089