Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Bholu @ Vijay Pratap Singh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Aug 2012CRMP/491/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the State of Chhattisgarh's application for leave to appeal under Section 378 CrPC against an acquittal. Finding the circumstantial evidence incomplete and inconclusive, the High Court held the Sessions Judge was justified in acquitting the respondent of murder charges.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal under Section 378(1) CrPC refused; leave petition dismissed.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Bholu @ Vijay… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

r'n' JRT ;ii"it 3
BY NOTiFiCATION N0.996Q/D-287Q/XX1-
B/C.Q./05 AS SPECiFIED IN SG4EDULE
I & B OFTHE COURT FEES ACT 1 870.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.| CR.M.P. N0. ^ ] I 2012

¶3

ACQUITTAL APPEAL No. / 2012

¶4

APPLICANT/ State of Ghhattisgarh APPELLANT Through: P.S. Newai, Distric-t Durg (C.G.) \9llJ,^

¶5

£S^^", VERSUS

¶6

NON-APPUCANT/ Bholu @ Vijay Pratap Singh, RESPONDENT S/o Pradeep Singh, Aged about - 20 years, R/o Maitrikunj Risali, Bhilai,

¶7

P.S. Newai, District Durg (C.G.

¶8

APPLICATION FOR^GRANT OF LBAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(31 AND MEMORANDUM OFAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

¶9

PROCEDURE. 1973

¶10

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶11

D.B.: HON'BLE MR. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA& HON'BI-E MR. RADHE SHYAIVI SHARMA. JJ.

^;-

Cr.M.P.No. 4918012

PETITIONER

State of Chhattisgarh Through: P.S.Newai, District Durg (C.G.)

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

RESPONDENT

¶18

Bholu @ Vijay Pratap Singh, S/o Pradeep Singh, Aged about -- 20 years, R/o Maitrikunj Risali, Bhilai, P.S. Newai, District Durg (C.G.).

¶19

APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION378(3l AND IVIEIVIORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 1973

¶20

ABBearance:

¶21

-..^.

¶22

Mr. Akhil Mishra, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State.

Order (13.08.2012)

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J

Heard.

The state is seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 10th of April, 2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 109/2011 by

¶27

Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶28

By the impugned judgment the respondent has been acquitted of the charges framed u/s 302 IPC.

¶29

'^&._

¶30

t-3~-%(,,.^.'i-SS^ y ^s'^.

¶31

-2 -

¶32

On 25-01-2011 at about 4.15 p.m. deceased - Shakuntala Devi was present in the ground floor of her house. Jyoti Singh (P.W.- 8 - mother of the respondent) and Ku. Pooja (P.W.-15 - sister of the respondent) were sleeping on the first floor. They heard some noise. When they came to the ground floor, they saw the deceased lying on pool of blood. They also saw that the respondent was trying to hide himself. When they asked the respondent, he made extra Judicial confession before them that he had assaulted the deceased (his grandmother) by an iron rod. The deceased was taken to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai, where she was declared dead.

¶33

The case of the prosecution was based on extra judicial confession made before Jyoti Singh (P.W.-8) and Pooja (P.W.-15) as also the seizure relating to the blood stained clothes and iron rod on the discovery statement of the respondent made u/s 27 of the Evidence Act,

¶34

The 2 witnesses of extra judicial confession namely Jyoti Singh (P.W.-8) and Pooja (P.W.-15)<ompletely turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge did not rely on their testimonies. The Sessions Jude, vide para 4 of the judgment, held that the independent witness ofmemorandum and seizure nametyVipin Jain (P.W.-13) turned hostile and he also did not support the case of the prosecution. The Sessions Judge further held that thecircumstance of seizure of iron rod on the instanees of discovery statement of the respondent was not incriminating because the prosecution could not prove that the blood stains found over the rod were of human blood and were matching to the blood group of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against him.

¶35

Admittedly, there was no eye witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. In a. case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances on which finding of guilt is to be recorded should be fully established and should be of conclusive nature and

¶36

<«..

¶37

¶38

tendency and further the circumstances should not be capable of being explained and the chain of circumstantial evidence should also be complete.

¶39

%"
^

¶40

In the instant case, circumstances set-forth by the prosecution were not fully established; they were not of conctusive nature and tendency and were capable of being explained. The chain of circumstantial evidence was also not complete.

¶41

We are of the view that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge was fullyjustified in acquitting the respondent of the charges framed against him.

¶42

For the foregoing reasons.we do not find any good ground to grant leave to the State to file an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.

¶43

Leave petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby

¶44

dismissed.

¶45

Sd/-
, Sd/-
Sunil Kumar Siiiha
R.S.Sharma
Judge
Judge

¶46

^utf

State of Chhattisgarh v. Bholu @ Vijay Pratap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Bholu @ Vijay Pratap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner CUSTOMand Central Exise Vs M/S Simplex Engg.andFOUNDRY Works Ltd.

D.k.rajak Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Mangluram Nag Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chamaru Korwa Vs State

Firatram Banaj @ Nanki Dau and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madan Gopal Vs the State of M.P.