Appeal against life imprisonment for murder. HC acquitted appellant due to fatal unexplained delay in reporting incident and recording witness statements, deeming evidence unreliable despite absence of dead body.
Conviction and sentence under Sec 302 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
r
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS‘RHGA BILASPUR \lxir ~
CORAM: Hon’ble Shri RaieevGypta,C.J.& Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha J.
Criminal ApILeal No. 659of1994
Lalan Prasad
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh (NowStateofChhattisgarh)
JUDGMENT
For consideration
5‘ _
Sd/-
—”1
SUNIL KUMAR’SINHA
‘
Juged _
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA J W’
Chief Justice
POSt for Judgment ;‘g//o3/2011
sax. SunitKumarSinha 1 Judge
km? @
\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha J.
Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 1994
APPELLANT Lalan Prasad, son of Bulluram Dewangan, aged 31 years, Cultivator of Village Misda, Police Station Sheorinarayan, District Bilaspur
Versus
RESPONDENT The State of Madhya Pradesh (NowStateofChhattisgarh),
(CriminalAppealunderSection374 (2)ofTheCodeofCriminal Procedure, 1 973)
Appearance:
Mr. Vishnu Koshta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Panel LawyerfortheState.
JUDGMENT
(og.o3.2o11)
Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.
(1) This appeal is directedagainst the judgmentdated29.6.94 passed in Sessions Trial No. 128/90 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment,theappellanthasbeenconvicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergoimprisonmentforlife.
2
Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 1994
deIiVered a male child. When shewasaskedbythein-laws,she admitted that the child delivered was that of Lakhan Koshta. On this, in-Iaws called her father Ramdayal (PW-6) and handedover the child and Tija Bai to him. Ramdayal (PW—6)thenorganizeda village Panchayat in village Misda. Many persons including the prosecution witnesses, Lakhan, accused No.1 — Bulluram and accused No. 5 - Dhanauram (died during the proceedings of committai proceedings) gathered in Panchayat. Lakhan admitted thathe had illicit relations with Tija Bai and the child born out of their illicit relations. The accused persons admitted tokeepTijaBai and child with them in their family and they took the child and Tija Bai with them. Out of 5 accused persons, A-1 Bulluram is father of - Lakhan Prasad, A-2 Lalan Prasad and A-4 Shobharam arethereal brothers of Lakhan PraSad and A-3 Darasram is uncle of Lakhan Prasad. On 27.8.85, the accused personswere taking Tija Bai (PW-1) and her child to Korba for‘their treatment. They were accompanied by Smt. Panch Kunwar @ Pancho (PW—2—motherof ,TijaBai),Narottamlai (PW-4—brotherofTijaBai)andRamcharan (PW-3). The allegations are that at about 4.00 a.m..when they reached near Bhatelighat, which is at distance of 14 Kms fromtheir village, Lalan Prasad (A-2, appeliant herein) snatched the child from Panch Kunwar (PW—2). Thereafter the accused personswent to the river side and Lalan Prasad (A-2) threw the child in Hasdeo river. When Tija Bai (PW-1), Smt. Panch Kunwar (PW-2), Ramcharan (PW-3) and Narottamlal (PW-4) triedto gototheriver side, they were stopped by otheraccused persons.Thereafterthe accused persons threat\ened them and alldisbursedfromthebank of river. Tija Bai (PW-1) went to the house ofherbrothernamely Purusottam (PW-5),whowas residing in Balco and was taking operator training. No body disclosed the matter foraverylongtime. However on 22.10.85 a written report (Ex.-P/1) wassubmittedby Tija Bai (PW-1) before Superintendent of Policeg Bilaspur, who directed the inqUiry. During the course of inquiry, 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Tija Bai (PW-1), Smt. Panch Kunwar (PW-2), / .Ramcharan (PW-3) and Narottamlal (PW-4) were recorded on
3
Criminal Apgal No. 659 of 1994
%
15.12.85. They supported the storymentioned in the written report ’the iodged. Tija Bai (PW-1)was medically examined and Doctor opined that she had delivered recently.Thedeadbodyofthechild could not be traced. After completion of usual investigation,thecharge-sheet-was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. Dhanauram (A-5) died during the committal proceedings. The learned Magistrate committed the matter to the concerned Sessions Court, from where, it was received on transfer by the First {x Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, who conducted the trial and convicted & sentenced the appellant (A—2) as aforementioned. However the other co-accused persons were acquitted of the charges framed against them u/s 302/34IPC.
(3) The learned Sessions Judgeheldthat it was not established that - the other 3 accused persons shared common intention for commission of murder of the deceased (child). Relying on the testimonies of Tija Bai ‘Narottamial (PW-1),Smt.PanchKunwar (PW-2),Ramcharan(PW-3)and (PW-4),theSessionsJudgeheldthattheappellant (A—2)snatchedthe child from Panch Kunwar and committed his murder by throwinghim in Hasdeo river.
(4) Mr. Vishnu Koshta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that there is inordinatedelayinlodgingtheF.l.R. (Ex.P/1); there is also long delay in recording 161 Cr.P.C. statements of prosecutionwitnesses;thedeadbodyofthechildhasnotbeentracedby the police; even the aboveeye-witnessesdidnotdisclosetheabovefact for a long time to any other person in the village; and accordingTijaBai (PW-1),shehaddisclosed all this’ to her brother Purusottam (PW-5)on the same dayi.e. on 27.8.85,but Purusottam (PW-5)alsodidnotlodge
4
Criminal Appeal No. 659of1994
any report. He did not disclose lallthistoanyother personinthevillage, though it comes in his evidence that he had visited his village after meeting Tija Bai (PW-1). Mr.Koshtahascitedvariousdecisionsonthe above points, which we shall discusslateron.
J
(5) Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passedbytheSessionsCourt.
(6) We have heard the learned counsel for the partiesatlengthand have also perused the records ofthesessionscase.
1: J
(7) In Ramii Surjya and another—Vs-$tateofMaharashtra,AIR 1983 SC 810, there was extra-ordinarydelay in lodging the F.l.R. and there Was also failure of the prosecutiontoexplainthedelay.Thereason givenbythe prosecUtionforinordinatedelayinreportingtheincidentto the police outpost was hardly convincing.TheSupremeCourtheldthatin such circumstances, the F.l.R. shouldbeviewedwithsuspicion.
(8) ln Dilawar Singh—Vs- StateofDelhi,AIR2007SC3234, it was held that in ert‘minal trial oneofthecardinal principlesfortheCourtisto look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainanttomake deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented beforethe‘ Court at the earliest instance. That is whyif thereisdelayineithercomingbeforethe policeor befo‘re the Court, the Courts alwaysviewtheallegationswithsuspicion
5
Criminal Appeal No.659of1994
and Iook for satisfactoryexplanation. If no such satisfactionisformed,the delay is treated asfataltothe prosecutioncase.
(9) ln Mahtab SLrLqh&Anr.—Vs-StateofU.P.,AIR2009SC£298, the incident took place few yards away from Police Station but eyewitness, informantdidnotreponthemattertoPoliceStationimmediately. They got a written repOIt preparedfromone person and then went to Police Station withwritten report. The SupremeCourtheldthedelay in reporting incident at police station creates doubt about truthfulness of prosecutioncase.
(10) If case on hand is examined on the above principles,wefindthat r the alleged incidenttook placeon27.8.85atabout4.30—5.30am.anda written report (Ex.-P/1)wassubmittedtotheSuperintendentofPoliceon 22.1‘O.85’; that means thematterwasreportedto the_ police by TijaBai (PW-1)afteraIongtimeofabout2months.Thiswrittenreportcontains, in the last 4-5 lines, that complainant—TijaBai (PW—1)hadalsorepoted the matter to policestationSheorinarayan. If we appreciate thecontents. of tt}e writtenreportonthefaceofevidenceofS.N.Pandey (PW-10),the then Station House Officer Sheorinarayan, it comes in his evidence, Para-5, that before receiving the report (Ex.-P/1),hedidnotreceiveany report from Tija Bai (PW-1) or any other member of the complainant family. Therefore, the version contained in the written report that the matter was firstlyreportedtothe policestation is false. Tija Bai (PW—1) deposed that shewasthreatenedforlodgingthetreportHoweverwhen she reached to the house of her brotherPurusottam (PW-5), she immediately disclosedallthistohim,butevenPurusottam (PW-5)didnot c
6
Criminal Appgal No. 659of1994
w
rx,“
lodge any report. PurusottamwasresidinginBaico.Hewastakingthere some operator training. This shows that he was an educated person. Purusottam, after the disclosurebyTija Bai on 27.8.85, had visited his village andhad met with thefamilymembers,buthedidnotdisclose all this to any body and on that occasion also he did not lodge a report. Apart from the above,eye-witnessesnamelySmt.PanchKunwar (PW—2), Ramcharan (PW—3)andNarottamlai (PW-4)alsodidnotlodgeanyreport to the police. The explanation given by Tija Bai, on the face of the contents of the evidence of S.N. Pandey (PW-10)asalsoon her own conduct and conductofallthefamilymembersandtheeyewitnesses, was not at all convincingandsatisfactory.Therefore,weareoftheview that un-explained inordinate delay in lodging the F.l.R., in light of the above judgments of theSupremeCourt,wasfataltothe prosecution.
’F.l.R. (11) We further note that even after lodging the (,Ex.-P/1) on 22.10.85 of the incidentof27.8.85,161 Cr.P.C. statementsoftheabove eye-witnesses i.e. Tija Bai (PW—1), Smt. Panch Kunwar (PW-2), Ramcharan (PW-3).andNarottamlal (PW-4)wererecorededon15.12.85. \ Before that, even they did not disclose these facts to anyone to the village.
‘
(12) ln BalakrushnaSwain—Vs-TheStateofOrissa,AIR1971SC 804, it was held thatunjustinedandunexplained long delay on partof investigating officerinrecordingstatementofmaterialeyewitnessduring investigation of murder case will render evidence of such witness *lunreliable.
7
Criminal Appeal N0.659of1994
.Narain (13) Further in Prem and Another—Vs- State of MadhKa Pradesh, (2007)! 15 SCC 485, the Supreme Court held that nonmentioning of thenameoftheeye-witnessintheF.l.R.isnotasignificant a omission bot Whatismaterialisthecontentofstatementofeye-witness. in the said case, the eye—witness was constantiy in touch with investigation officer but his statementwas recorded after one—and-half months. The SupremeCourtheldthat if his statementwasnotrecorded on the date Ofincidentorwithinreasonabletimetherefrom, it has to be viewed with caution.
\‘i f
7 ,
' ll l/
(14) In case on hand, we find no reason as to why the Investigating Officer caused such delay in recording statements of above witnesses which were recorded after more than 3 & 1/2 months of the date of the incident. If, in fact, such incident had taken place, in normal human nature, the eye-witnesseswouldhavedisclosed all this to the police or' even to the villagersonsomeearlieroccasionwhichtheydidnotdoand ultimately everything was disclosed after such a long period. The unexplained inordinate delay indisclosureofthe inCident by theabove 'creates witnesses doubt on thetestimoniesofthesewitnessesmaking their evidence unreliableanduntrustworthy.
(15) Mr. Koshta has alsoarguedthatthedeadbodyofthechildwas not recovered in this matter,therefore,itwasnotsafetoconvicttheappellant for commission ofmurderoftheabovechild.Thisargumentrelatestothe delicti". Principally therecoveryofdeadbodyisnotan proofof-"corpus essential ingredientofanoffenceofmurder. In Mani KumarThapa—Vs- “In _—‘———I—-—————State of Sikkim AIR 2002 SC 2920, it was held that a trial for
8
Criminal Appeal No. 659of1994
r‘ A «’4‘
murder, it is neither an absolutenecessitynoranessentialingredientto establish corpus delicti. The fact of thedeathofthedeceasedmustbe established like any otherfact.Corpusdelictiin‘somecasesmaynotbe possibleto‘be'tracedorrecovered.Thereareanumberofpossibilities where a'dead body couldbedisposedofwithouttrace,therefore, if the recovery of the deadbody is to be held tobemandatorytoconvictan accused, in many a casetheaccusedwouldmanagetoseethatthedead body is destroyed whichwould afford the accused complete immunity from being held guilty orfrombeing punished.Whatisthereforerequired in law to base a convictionforanoffenceofmurderisthatthereshould be reliable and plausibleevidencethatthe offence of murder like any / v other factum of death was committed and it must be proved bydirector circumstantial evidencealbeitthedeadbodymaynotbetraced”.
(16) Therefore, in a given case, if the dead bodywasnotrecovered,that by itself would not be groundtorejecttheentirecaseofthe prosecution or to hold that the offence of murder was not established. What is required in law is that an offence ofmurderwascommittedand it was provedbeyondallreasonabledoubtsbydirectorcircumstantialevidence. In the present case,aswehavealreadyheld,thewitnessestothe.effect of commission of murderofthedeceased (child)bytheappellantwere not reliable on account of their conduct and further. on account of inordinate delayin disclosureontheir part.Therefore,non-recoveryofthe dead body would not be of much importance in the facts and m circumstances of the presentcase.
9
Criminal Appeal No.659of1994
(17) On appreciationoftheentireevidenceavailableonrecord,weare of the View thatitwasnotestabiishedbeyondailreasonabledoubtsthat the appellantcommitted murder of thedeceased (child) in the manner indicated above by the prosecution and the story set forth by the prosecutionappearstobedoubtful.
(18) For the foregoingreasons,weallowthisappealandset-asidethe conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 302 IPC. The appellant is acquittedofthechargesframedagainsthim. It is stated that the appellant ison bail. His bail bondsarecancelledandsuretystands
discharged.
i
- Sd/.
Sd/- ,
Chief Justice
‘
was
vatti
3 issues framed by the court
Whether inordinate unexplained delay in lodging F.I.R. and recording statements renders prosecution evidence unreliable.
Whether non-recovery of the dead body requires rejection of murder charge in absence of other evidence.
Whether prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jamal Surjya and another v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶44
Jamal Surjya and another—Vs-State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 810 · Who else cites this
Dilawar Singh v. State of DelhiReferred¶45
Dilawar Singh—Vs- State of Delhi, AIR 2007 SC 3234 · Who else cites this
Mahtab Siliq&Anr. v. State of U.P.Referred¶49
Mahtab Siliq&Anr.—Vs-Stateof U.P., AIR 2009 SC 5298 · Who else cites this
Balakrushna Swain v. The State of OrissaReferred¶58
Balakrushna Swain—Vs-The State of Orissa, AIR 1971 SC 804 · Who else cites this
Prem and Another v. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶61
Prem and Another—Vs- State of MadhKa Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 485 · Who else cites this
Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of SikkimReferred¶66
Mani Kumar Thapa—Vs- State of Sikkim AIR 2002 SC 2920 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lalan Prasad
State of Chhattisgarh
Raajiv Gupta
Sunil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
