High Court allowed criminal appeals challenging death sentence conviction. Court held circumstantial evidence chain incomplete due to lack of identification of knife and blood origin, granting acquittal.
Impugned judgment set aside; appellants acquitted of charges; bail bonds discharged.
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.
../'
^%^^
k^
:' M^.1/.
^<^g^'-'^^
•0< OiviSit}^ 3e'nc
^**
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CR. A. Np_ J J J .9 /20Q7
OiviSit}^ 3e'nc
Appellant Jamuna,
(In-Custody) S/o Lalua Harijan, 24 years, R/o Village-Sendua, P.S. Manendragarh,
Distt. Koria (C.G.)
VERSUS
Respondent State of Chhattisgarh
Through: Distt. Mag^strate R.^Sas^Essff' ?; Distt. Koria (C.G.
CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374(2) OF_CRIMZNAL-EB^C'u-nI-
(NAFR
| HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CRA No. 1040 of 2007 |
|
|---|---|
| Heeralal, S/o Sant Kumar Harijan, age 24 years, R/o Village Gadamuda, P.S. Pondi, Distt. Koria, at present R/o Village Sendha, P.S. Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (CG) ---- Appellant |
|
| Versus | |
| - | State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station,IManendragarh, Distt. Korea (CG) --—- Respondent And CRA No. 1119 Of 2007 |
| - | Jamuna, S/o Lalua Harijan, 24 years, R/o Village Sendua, P.S. Manendragarh, Distt. Korea (CG) —--- Appellant Vs |
| - | State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Manendragarh, Distt. Koria (CG) —--- Respondent |
ForAppellant—Heeralal : Smt. Usha Chandrakar,Adv. ForAppellant—Jamuna : Shri Akash Pandey, Advi For Respondent/State : Shri Arvind Dubey, PL.
Hon'ble Shri JusticePritinkerDiwaker Hon'ble Shri Justice R.C.S. Samant
Judgment On BoardByJustice/PritinkerDiwaker
2011 0/2016
As both these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 31.10.2007 passedbyFirstAdditionalSessionsJudge,Manendragarh, '/ 7 Distt. Koria in ST No.127/06, they are being disposed of by this r
common judgment.
rm
@
circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pieadedinnocenceandfalseimplication. 04. The trial Court after hearing counselfor therespective partiesand considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgmentconvicted both the appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC ‘for and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment life and fine of Rs.500/— with default stipulation. ‘l
Ci;
AH
judgment has submitted that the judgment impugned is strictly in accordance with law and there is no scope for any interference by this Court.
O7. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
she statesthatshesawtheknifeinsertedintheneckofthedeceased. Likewise. there is contradiction in respect of arrival of appellant Heeralal to her house. At one placeshe states that hecame in the previouseveningoftheincidentwhereasatanotherplace,shestates that hecame20daysback. 09. PW—3Narad Prasad,son of thedeceased, has statedthatthe accused/appellant Heeralal used to beat his sisterand drag her out also convened in this from his houseand a panchayatmeetingwas respect. According to him,when the appellant Heeralalcame to his househewascarrying knifeandthreatened his father/deceased. He admits in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that he had informedthe policethatabout20dayspriortothedateofincident,the accused/appellant had come to his house. He also states that one slipperwas found near the dead body, however, the samewas not identifiedbyhimandlikewise,theknifeinquestionwasalsonotshown to himforidentification.
/
husband was having illicit relation with one Amnabai and he used to visit her. She has further stated that a day prior to the incident, accused/appellants came to her house to take her and when she refused, they quarreled with her father and appellant Heeralal also showed knife to her father and threatened him. On the next morning, dead body of her father was found outside the shop. She has stated that the knife which she is referring to is a common knife available in x the market. PW—8 Narmada Prasad', brother of the deceased, is lodger of merg intimation and FIR. PW-9 Lal Ahibaran has not stated anything specific against the appellants. PW—fO Raghunandan Singh and PW11 P.S. Thakur, police personnel, helped in the investigation. PW-12 Keskumari is a hearsay witness. PW—13 A. Toppo, investigating officer, has supported the prosecution case. PW—14 Dr. Suresh Tiwari has proved the postmortem report prepared by Dr. E. Xalxo, wherein following injuries were noticed on the person ofthe deceased: (i) four stab wounds on dorsal aspect of lower 1/3d of left forearm, 1 1/2 X 1 inch, bony deep.
(ii) below left mid clavicle stab wound, 2" x 1 1/2" deep penetrated into left upper lob lung.
(iii) stab wound on left side of neck on the side of trachea and below the larynx, 1 1/2" x 1 1/2 large vessels, external common carotid artery and oesophagus.
which penetrated the abdominal muscles and injured the small intestines size of wound 1 1/2" x 1". (vii) below the umbilicus in pubic region, thereis stabwoundsizeof1 1/2" x 1" which penetrated the abdominal wall and injured the smail intestine.
(viii) incised wound on the back ofleft shoulder 3” X 1" skin deep. On opening of peritoneal cavity and plureal cavity there is about
3 liters of blood mixed fluid present.
Except above, thereis no other injury found.”
ln his opinion, the causeof death was asphyxia and hemorrhage due to injuries to large vessels and heart, and thenatureofdeathwas homicidal.
<br>0L5
/‘.‘
evidence, the circumstances fr'om which the conciusion of guiit is to be drawn have not cniy to be fuiiy estabiished but also that ail the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Those ~ circumstances should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and the chain of the evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with th'e innocence of the accused. lt needs no reminder that legally established circumstances and not merely indignation of the court can form the basis of conviction and the more serious the crime, the greater should be the care taken to scrutinize the evidence lest suspicion takes the place of proof.
of appellant Heeralal from the spotisconcerned,thoughthesamehas been identified by the witness to bethatofthisappeiiant,butmerelyon that basis it would not be safe to connect him with the crime in question. The prosecution was required to adduce some other evidence or prove the other circumstances to such an extent which could lead to an irresistible conclusionthat it is the accused/appellants alone who committed the offence and none else. Unfortunately, that has not been done in the present case and the chainofcircumstances remains incomplete. 15. Thus, all the circumstances if taken together do not conclusively and unerringly point towardsthe guiltoftheaccused/appellants,rather they seem to be consistentwiththeinnocenceoftheappellants.Being so, the findings of guiltrecordedbythe trial Court are liable to be set aside and the appellants are entitled for acquittal of the charges by givingthembenefitofdoubt. 16. ln the result, the appeals are allowed.Theimpugned judgment is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of charges under Section 302/34 of IPC.Theyarereportedtobeon bail, therefore, their baiLbonds stand dischargedandtheyneednotsurrender: ‘\ Sdl/ Sd/(PritinkerDiwaker) (R.C.SV.VL§amant) Judge Judge
Khan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence can sustain when the chain of evidence is incomplete.
Whether seized items like slippers and clothings without serological reports or identification conclusively prove guilt.
Whether the appellants are entitled to acquittal when prosecution fails to prove all circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Heeralal
Jamuna
State of Chhattisgarh
Pritinker Diwaker
R.C.S. Samant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
