Allowed

Sobran v. the State of M.P.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Sept 2014CRA/1582/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal convicting appellant for murder. Court held prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to weak circumstantial evidence and inconsistent witness testimony, acquitting appellant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; appellant acquitted of charge under Section 302 IPC; bail bonds continued for six months.

Sobran Vs the State of M.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

^rifie^^n^'

¶3

SBE- HIGH COORS OF JTOICATHRE AS JABALPBR M-.P. ;^C1SMINAL APPEAL N0, •Of 2000.

¶4

WSf

¶5

^ppellact,. Sobran son ot Somaraa aged about (in jail). 35 years, B/o village- paharadih, 'i'PtSfB.ajpWt.'Disttt Sargu^a M*P<

¶6

versas.

¶7

Respondent. Ihe State o£M«P« Ibroagh the PtS.Bajpt.ir, Bistti SaTgaja M<P*

¶8

CRMIHAL APPBAL inOER saESI'ION 374(2) ©E' THE CODE OF CRIMZNAL PBOC®®ES 1975 •

¶9

.^.^:;^^ S9,
.s.^&^ ^<br>

¶10

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶11

DIVISION BENCH

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. YATINDRA SINGH C.J. &

¶13

HON'BLE MR. PRITINKER DIWAKER. J

¶14

Criminal Appeal No.1582 of 2000

Appellant In Jail

. Sobran

Versus

Respondent The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)

¶19

....KStlSS?

¶20

Present: Shri D.N. Prajapati, Counsel for the appellant. Shri DK Gwalre, Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Delivered on 3rd September, 2014)

¶23

This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.4.2000 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur (Surguja) (MP) in S.T.No.285/99 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment.

¶24

^..S8$l

¶25

As per prosecution case, on 26.6.1999 the accused/appellant and his wife Thagnibai had gone to Village-Bhendri and it is alleged that while returning the accused/appellant committed murder of his wife. On 28.6.1999 FIR (Ex.P/9) and merg intimation (Ex.P/10) were recorded simultaneously at the instance of PW-9 Surjan. Postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on 29.6.1999 (however, inadvertently the date is mentioned in the PMreport as 26.6.1999 but from the memo sent by the police for postmortem examination to the concerned doctor, the date is mentioned as 29.6.1999) by PW-12 Dr. Preetam Ram vide Ex.P/19 and he opined that the cause of death was syncope due to rupture of right lung and the death was homicidal in

¶26

¶27

nature. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of IPC and accordingly, charge was framed against him.

¶28

';'-'i-'?S>'-^ --^

¶29

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as^-12 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was re.corded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appegring against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false tmplication. In defence, he has stated that he and his wife had gone to Village-Bhendri in the house of Sarpanch for getting the labour charges and while returning he and his wife were made to drink liquor by Sohan in the house of Jeetan; his wife was too drunk to walk properly and was staggering. The road from Village-Bhendri to their village is stony and when they were returning, it was dark. While they were crossing the nalla, in which there are big stones, his wife accidentally fell on the stone in the nalla and suffered injuries. Then he somehow lifted her up and took to his house. He has stated that he is not aware as to when his wife died in the night and he came to know about her death in the morning only. He has also examined one Santosh Minj as DW-1 in his defence.

¶30

The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 ofthisjudgment.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that present is a case of no evidence against the accused/appellant as none of the witnesses,

¶32

¶33

-©

¶34

including PW-1 Ramdev before whom extrajudicial confession is alleged to have been made by the accused/appellant, has supported the prosecution^case.

¶35

-S'a .)£;•/

¶36

On the other hand, supp.orting the impugned judgment it has been argued by learned counsei for the State that conviction of the accused/appellant is strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting interference by this Court.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶38

PW-1 Ramdev is a witness ]to alleged extrajudicial confession made by the accused/appellant before him. In the examination-in-chief though he has stated that the accused/appellant had confessed before him that while returning he had some quarrel with his wife and he had beaten her as a result of which she died, but in cross-examination he has stated no such confession was made by the accused/appellant before him. PW-2 Lagna, PW-3 Bageshwar Prasad, PW-4 Sohan, PW-6 Laxman, PW-7 Somaru, PW-9 Surjan, who lodged FIR and merg intimation, and PW-10 Budhan have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. PW-5 Jitan is a witness to arrest memo (Ex.P/6) of- the accused/appellant. PW-8 Sukhdev, minor son of the accused/appellant and the deceased, has not stated anything against the accused/appellant. He has stated that the appellant had informed him in the night itself that the deceased had fallen down in the nalla. PW-11 B. Minj, investigating officer, has duly supported the prosecution

6<i r-

IfL ', \ t»-

^s.

case. PW-12 Dr. Preetam Ram conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was syncope due to rupture of right lung and excessive bleedings. Though he has stated that the death was homicidal in nature but in the cross-examination he has stated that the injury sustained by the deceased could have been due to fall on stony ground under the influence of liquor.

¶44

DW-1 Santosh Minj has stated that on being asked, the accused/appellant had informed him that on the date of incident the accused/appellant and his wife had gone to Village-Bhendri, there they had consumed liquor and while returning wife of the accused/appellant had fallen down in the nalla, in which there are number ofstones.

¶45

¶46

Admittedly, there is no direct evidence against the accused/appellant connecting him with the crime in question. The case is based on circumstantial evidence i.e. extrajudicial confession of the accused/appellant, medical evidence and conduct of the accused/appellant. So far as extrajudicial confession is concerned, PW-1 Ramdev is the witness before whom the said confession is alleged to have been made by the accused/appellant, but in cross-examination this witness has denied the suggestion that any such statement was made by the accused/appellant before him. However, he has further stated that the accused/appellant had informed him that he and his wife had consumed liquor, while they were returning from Village-Bhendri his wife had fallen down and sustained injuries. Most of the other important witnesses, including PW-9 Surjan - lodger of FIR and merg intimation - have not supported the pjosecution case and have been declared hostile. Even the medical evidence does not fully support the

¶47

¶48

prosecution case. Dr. Preetam Ram (PW-12), who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased though in examination-in-chief has opined that the death was homicidal in nature but in crossexamination has admitted the suggestion that the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused due to fall on stony ground under the influence of liquor. As such, the medical evidence also lends support to the defence of the accused/appellant taken by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Ct.P.C. wherein he has stated that while returning from Village-Bhendri her wife due to over-consumption of liquor had fallen down in the nalla, in which there are number of stones, and sustained injuries on her body. Even if the entire circumstances are taken together, they do not form a complete chain where the hypothesis of innocence of the accused/appellant could be ruled out or lead to an irresistible inference that it is none else but the accused/appellant who committed murder of the deceased. Thus, considering the overall evidence, oral and documentary, available on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove involvement of the accused/appellant in commission of the offence on the basis of circumstantial evidence beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted of the charge by extending him benefit of reasonable doubt.

¶49

In thg result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of IPC. He is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall continue for a period of six months from today in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

¶50

	Sd/-
Sd/-	PritinkerDiwakar
ChiefJustice	Judge

Sobran v. the State of M.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobran v. the State of M.P.

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

Banshi Das Vs the State of M.P.

Karmu Rathia Vs State

Rambahadur Vs the State of M.P.

Radheshyam @ Bodu Vs State

Smt.Phool Bai Jhariya Vs State

Deepak Shrivastava Vs Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya And Anr.