Allowed

Rambahadur v. the State of M.P.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Sept 2014CRA/654/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against a murder conviction, the High Court examined evidence regarding the presence of the accused at the crime scene. The Court held that while evidence supported a quarrel and the murder occurring in a specific room, there was insufficient proof placing the appellant inside the room at the relevant time. Consequently, the conviction was unsustainable. The High Court allo

What did the court decide?

Conviction under section 302 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted. Bail bonds discharged as of execution.

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

lb»'i.

CF0000063092"

%gy

OiMision Bencht. 'luu'lu

¶5

" •s sssa so^a wss ey ^©3;e.®mBj^a'^SE^ ^%) '(%WmA£'APPg^'ISO»|S..^L./S@0@. ^ SB£S,'0S^B.aSE3^msm9,^^de!S^Sa&SSM.SLSMSS& P^E t intAPPB AHE ^•'soia.„of[ A^laflsa—^.^ .•^(bataa^*s(j^i^^a^u^^SO_yBarS., ( E« ^sa.aatffl^ef Bleek!l - TeTSBtf— V. :8ts^a1i9 .<®'Maffiya.J'l^dash

¶6

^' v /

¶7

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J

¶9

CriminaLAppeal No. 654 of 2000

¶10

APPELLANT Rambahadur.

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh (Now ChhatUsgarh)

¶13

Griminal Appeal under section 374(2) oF Cr.P.C

¶14

Appearance: Shri RN Jha, Advocate For the Appellant. Shri VA Goverdhan, Rgnel Lawyer For the State.

¶15

JUDGEMENT

¶16

(2"dSeptember, 2014)

¶17

This is a criminal appeal against the order oF conviction and sentence dated 109.02.2000, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (the ASJ) in Sessions Trial No- 364 of 1999 convicting and awarding liFe imprisonment with Fine of ?500/- and in deFault oF payment Rne, Further rigorous imprisonment For one month to Rambahadur (the Appellant) under section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶18

THE FACTS

¶19

The dead-body oF one Deepak Bahadur (the Deceased) was discovered at about 6:30 hours on 12.05.1999. Thereafter, Gangaram (PW-1) (the InFormant) lodged the FirsL inFormation report (the FIR) (Ex. P-1) on 12.05.1999 at about 09:10 hours. It was registered as Crime No. 33 oF 1999 undersections 302 IPCatPoliceStation, Bacheli, District Dantewada.

¶20

The allegations in the FIR (Ex. P-1) are as Follows:

¶21

(a) The Informant works in the post of MCO Grade I in NMDC. On 12.05.1999 at about: 6:30 haurs, one Moti inFormed the InFormant that a dead-body was lying in Front of his house and someone had ' "~\ killed him; ^-

¶22

^ES^,•';%". ';l ^? ^ ,.^ljy!3.,B',,^?

¶23

(b) The InFormant alongwith other persons (names-mentioned in the FIR) went to the spot and saw that someone had caused injuries by a sharp edged weapon and blood had oozed out;

¶24

(c) They inspected the spot•'•1.and saw that the dead-body was dragged and blood was also Fou'rid. This was upto the room of one Ganesh, who lives in the house oF Pardeshi (PW-4);

¶25

(d)^{TheroomofGaneshislockedFromEheoutsideandintheadjacenl:} room Balbahadurand Rambahadur(PW-S) are residing;

¶26

(e) Rambahadur (PW-5) informed them that:

¶27

In the night Ganesh and two other Nepalis, who had come from Dantewada. At 23:00 hours, they consumed liquor and were shouting;

¶28

Thereafter, he.went on duty;

¶29

One oF Nepalis riamely Sanakraj works in PCL company informed

¶30

. that the name of the Deceased was Deepak Bahadur and he worked in PCL company.

¶31

(R The Deceased might have been killed by Ganesh and the two other Nepalis who had come From Dantewada;

¶32

(g) The report be lodged and appropriate proceedings be taken.

¶33

The police investigated the case and submitted the police report along with charge-sheet againsl: Ehe Appellant and two other persons namely Ganesh Bahadur and Tej Bahadur, who were shown to be absconding.

¶34

The case was committed to the Session Court For trial and was registered as ST- 364 of 1999.

¶35

The ASJ framed charge on 04.09.1999 charging the Appellant under section 302 IPC.

¶36

Among others, the prosecufcion filed the following documents:

¶37

First Information Report (Ex. P-1);

¶38

i^: 1:'.:': :'i

¶39

^^^ffip

¶40

Inquest (Ex. P-2);

¶41

Memorandum of seizure oF blood-stained soil and Candasa (Ex. P-3);

¶42

Memorandum oF seizure of blood-stained and plain soil, bloodstained white cloth and shi^t From the spot (Ex. P-4);

¶43

Statement under section 1 61 CrPC of Bilbahadur (PW-3) (Ex. P-5);

¶44

Statementundersecfcion 161 CrPCoFPardeshi (PW-4) (Ex. P-6);

¶45

Post-mortem report (Ex. P-7); ..

¶46

Query^Report (Ex.^P-8);

¶47

Crime Details Form (Ex. P-10); ,"

¶48

Spot map prepared by Patwari (Ex. P-11);

¶49

Duty CertiFicafce (Ex. P-1 2);

¶50

Notice under section 1 75 CrPC (Ex. P-14);

¶51

Memorandum of arrest oF the Appellant (Ex. P-17).

¶52

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined bhe Following wiknesses:

¶53

(a) Gangaram (PW-1): He is the InFormant. He reached the spot in the morning after being inFormed by one Moti who worked as Masion;

¶54

(b) Vijay (PW-2): He is the witness oF Inquest (Ex. P-2), memorandum oF seizure of blood-stained and plain soil, blood-stained white doth and shirt From the spot (Ex. P-4);

¶55

(c) Bilbahadur (PW-3): He saw the dead-body in the morning. He was examined by the prosecution regarding the injuries on the deadbody as well as to show that there were blood stains and the signs oF dragging at the place oF inddent;. He tumed hostile, however, in the cross-examination, he admitted that he had seen the signs of

¶56

'p— dragging From the room oF Ganesh upto the place where the deadbody was Found; ^———-^

¶57

'"ii^1!; . - '; ffilll^^'fr''" li;!l'::il'i<:,11:. i.-1 Bw"':"'!'!s'"

¶58

v<br>

¶59

(d) Pardeshi (PW-4): He used to let out Ehe rooms-in his house. The prosecution^{examinedhimtoshow that Ganeshwaslivingastenant:} in one oF the cooms. However, he turned hostile and denied the same;

¶60

^f.

¶61

(e) Rambahadur (PW-5): He 'used to reside in the room adjacent fco the room oF Ganesh. He stated that there was signs oF dragging as well as blood spots From the room of Ganesh upto the place where the dead-body was found. However, he tumed hostile so Far as the quarrel in the room oF Ganesh was concerned. In- the crossexamination, he admitted thal: the Deceased and Ganesh used to consume liquor together and they used to quarrel. He Further admitted that he had seen the Deceased and Ganesh consuming liquor and Rghting with each other in the night prior to Ehe day when dead bodywas found;

¶62

(F) Dr. GR Uraon (PW-6): He is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem;

¶63

(g) ICShandilya (PW-7): He is the Investigating OFFicer (the 10).

¶64

The statement of the Appellant, under section 313 CrPC was recorded on 28.01.2000. He stated that: he is innocent and has been implicated falsely. He also, neither Filed any documents, nor examined.any witness in his deFence.

¶65

AFter considering the evidence on record, the ASJ convicted the Appellant on 09.02.2000 ahd awarded punishment as detailed in the opening paragraph oF the judgement. Hence, the presenl: appeal by the Appellant.

¶66

THE DECISION

¶67

We have heard counsel For the parties.

¶68

n'miaig^BI'B^"'

¶69

The prosecution case in brieF is thafc Pardeshi (PW-4) used to [et out the rooms and had let out-a room to Ganesh. In this room, in the intervening nightoF 11.05.1999 and 12.05.1999 Ganesh (absconding), the Deceased, the Appellant and Tejbahadur (absconding) had consumed liquor; there was a quarrel, in which the Deceased was killed.

¶70

Pardeshi (PW-4) .denied bhat he had let out the room to Ganesh. However, he admitted that: he had' let out the room to Rambahadur (PW-5).

¶71

There is ample evidence on the re'cord to show that:

¶72

Therewas quarrel in the night intervening 11/12.05.1999. This has been stated by Rambahadur (PW-5);

¶73

There were signs oF dragging a body as well as blood spots in fronl: oF the room oF Ganesh upto the place where the dead-body was Found. This has been stated by Bilbahadur (PW- 3) and Rambahadur (PW-5).

¶74

This give credence to the prosecution story that the inddent happened inside the room oF Ganesh.

¶75

The prosecubion case in the FIR is also thal: alongwith Ganesh, two other Nepalis were also present, who had come From Dantewada. However, there is no evidence on record to show that apart from Ganesh and the Deceased, there were two other persons. There is also no evidence"on record to show that the Appellanb was also presenfc in the ^ room.

¶76

In absence oF any prooF that bhe Appellant was present in the room in Che night, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubL against the Appellant.

¶77

'~,

¶78

In view of above, the appeal is allowed. The conviction oF the Appellanl: under section 302 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of Ehe charge.

¶79

The Appetlant is on bail. He need not: surrender. His bail bonds are not f! discharged at this stage. They shall be operative For fche purpose and in terms ofsection 437-A CrPC as if it was executed in pursuance ofthesame Forthe period mentioned therein and thereaftershall stand discharged.

¶80

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allawed and
Rambahadur is acquitted of all charges.
Sd/-
Sd/- pritinker Diwaker
ChiefJustice

¶81

subbu

¶82

^ :,^:^.^:spS^s-T!t'vyf!

Rambahadur v. the State of M.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambahadur 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

Madakami Pedaram @ Soansuram Vs State

Dhalan Singh @ Raju Thakur Vs State

Lala Mukunda @ Mukunda Vs State

Banshi Das Vs the State of M.P.

Karmu Rathia Vs State

Bihari and Ors. Vs State