Allowed

Raju Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2016CRA/415/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeal against the conviction and death sentence for murder by the Additional Sessions Judge. The bench acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution failed to connect him to the crime as its key witnesses had become hostile and the seizure of the alleged murder weapon was inconclusive without forensic confirmation. The conviction was unsustainable as there

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges under Section 302 IPC.

Raju Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 415 of 2003

¶5

l. Raju Baghel, aged about 26 years, son of Shri Khedurem Baghel, resident of village Kanakot, PS Palari, Distréct Raipur, CG

¶6

---- AppeHant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State 0f Chhattisgarh

¶9

Respondent

¶10

¶11

For AppeHant: Shri PKC Tiwari Sr. Advocate with^Shri Devesh Kela, Advocate For Respondent/State: Shri Ravindra AgrawaL PL

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker^Diwaker Hon'ble Shri Justice C.B.^Bajpai Judgment On Board_b1^{PritinkerDiwaker,J} 14/06/2016: 7

¶13

This appeai has been filed against^the judgment^ofconviction and order of sentence dated 20.3.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Baioda Bazar, in Sessions Trial No. 493/2002 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000, plus default stipulations.

¶14

Name of the deceased in the present case is Koduram — the father of the accused/appellant. It is alleged that on 7.11.2002 when the accused/appellant was leaving the house, his father (deceased) raised an objection for that and as a result of which accused got^angryand gave 2-3 axe blows to him leading to his death. Incident was witnessed by Kejauram (PW—2) — the uncle of a

F 0 \ ix

i 1

the accused/appellant.^{MergintimationEx.P—2wasrecordedontheO} — cousin of the^accused. same^{dayattheinstanceofJagram(PW—1)} of^FIREx‘ P—l inquest EX. P—1Q^{wasmadefollowedby} registration was sent for deadbody under Sections 302 IPC. Thereafter, by Dr. F.R. Niraia which^was conducted examination postmortem charge his report Ex. P-13. After investigation, (PW—7) who gave accused/appellant^under Section 302 sheet^was fiied against^the the Court beiow framed the charge against him IPC. However, \ under^{Sections302and352IPC.}

¶19

in of the^{accused/appeiiant} 3. in order^to prove^{thecomplicity} the^{crimeinquestion,theprosecutionhasexamined10witnesses.} Cr.P.C.^was Statement^{oftheaccused/appeiiantunderSection313} his guilt^and pleaded^innocence in^{whichhedenied} also^recorded and^{falseimplicationinthecase.}

¶20

the the Court below acquitted 4. After hearing the parties, him as and sentenced accused u/s 352 but has convicted mentioned^above.

¶21

W§i¥§§

¶22

submits that ail the 5. Counsel for the accused/appellant important^{witnessesincludingtheeyewitnessKejauram(PW—2)and} iodger^{ofmergandFIRnamelyjagram(PW—1)havenotsupported} and have been declared hostile. He the case of^the prosecution Q solely^onthebasis submits^{thattheappellanthasbeenconvicted} of^{diarystatementsofthewitnessesandtheFIRlodgedbyjagram} to the under^the law. According which is not permissible (PW—1) counsel^{fortheaccused/appellant,oneaxeandshirtoftheaccused} seized^which as per^theFSLreport Ex. P—Zl is said to have^been

¶23

¶24

have contained blood but in the absence of serological report confirming the origin of blood such seizure has no significance. Even otherwise, according^{tothecounselfortheaccused/appellant,} the axe has been seized from^anopen place^{accessibletooneand} all and therefore also conviction of the accused based on such recovery is bad. 6. State counsel however supports^the judgment^impugnedand submits that the findings^{recordedbytheCourtbelowarebasedon} due appreciation of the evidence^{onrecordandthere} is no infirmity/ in the same. He submits^{thatthoughtheimportantwitnesseshave} not supported the case of^the prosecution^{andhavebeendeclared} hostile, the Court below^wasfully justified in basing the conviction on the diary statements of the witnesses and the FIR lodged by Jagram (PW-1) which hsa d uly been proved by the investigating officer‘ H e sbumits th at as the bl ood has been foUnd on^theaxean d the shirt of the accu sed for wh ich no satisfacotry explanation has been offeredby him, convictoni of the accused/appellant is just and proper^andwarrants no itferenernce in this appeal.

¶25

Heard counsel for teh parties and peruse d the material available on record. 8. jagram (PW-1) — the logerd of the FIR and the merg has not ‘ supported the case of the prectionosu and has been declared hostile. Similar is the position with Kejauram (PW-2) — the eyewtnessi to the incident who too^{hasnotsupporte} d the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Muglibai alias Buglibai (PW-3) — the sister-in-law of the accused has also not - the supported the case^ofthe prosecution.^{YashwantDhruv(PW-4)} a

¶26

¶27

Witness to memorandum of the accused EX. P—6 and seizure of blood stained^axemadeunder Ex. P—7 has supported^thecaseof the prosecution. Kailan Bai (PW—5) — the daughter of the deceased has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Ram Kishun Bandhe (PW-6) is the witness to inquest and seizure of^Lungiand shirt of^{theaccusedmadeunder} EX. P-l2. Dr. F.R. Nirala (PW—7) is the witness^who conducted the postmortem^{examinationonthebodyofthedeceasedandgavehis} report EX. P—13 describing the injuries noticed by him which are mentioned^asunder: i

¶28

¶29

(i) Incised^wound - eliptical shape over front of neck just^above thyroid^{cartiiedge,leftside—size2.25"X1"X3";}

¶30

(ii) incised^wound — eliptical shapr oblique^— just^below thyroid cartiledge,^{rightside—size2.25”x1"x3";} Both these - hard and sharp object;

¶31

wounds^{cutdowntotrachea;}

¶32

(iii) lncised^{wound—elipticalshape,obliqueoverclavicleregion,} — cut down to clavicle^— left

¶33

left side^{—size2.25"x1‘x21/2”} side first^rib, - hard and sharp object;

¶34

(iv) lncised^{woundverticle—overrightear—size2.25"xl/2"X2"} cut down^{tobaseofskullbone~hardandsharpobject;}

¶35

( v) lncised^{woundelipticalshape—2.25"Xl”X2.5"overskull—} cut down^{toskullbone—hardandsharpobject;}

¶36

¶37

(vi) lncised wound eliptical^{shape-2.25"X1”X2.5"onthelower} portion^ofneck;

¶38

right little finger^~ hard and

¶39

(vii) lncised^{wound—1"X1/3”X1/3"} sharp^object.

¶40

According to this witness, the death was on account of

¶41

hypovolemic^shock (Excessive^{externalbleeding)duetoinjuryover} head and neck region, cut down of trachea and the death was homicidal in nature.

¶42

A. Kujur (PW—10) is the investigating officer who has duly supported^thecaseofthe prosecution. 9. After hearing counsel for the appellant and perusing the material on record this Court feels that the prosecution has not been in a position to adduce^even an iota of evidence^toconnect the accused/appellant with the commission of murder of the Kejauram (PW-2)^{andthelodgerof} deceased.^{Eventheeyewitness} the merg^andthe FIR namely Jagram (PWvl) have not supported the case^ofthe prosecution^{andhavebeendeclaredhostile.Though} on the memoradnum^{ofaccused,bloodstainedaxeandshirtofthe} accused were seized vide Ex. P-21, in the absence of serological report confirming^{theoriginofthebloodthereon:suchseizure} is of no consequence to establish his complicity with the crime in question.^The Court below has thus fallen in error in holding the accused guilty^{forcommissionofmurderofthedeceasedsimplyon} the basis of diary^{statementsofthewitnessesandthe} FIR lodged by jagram (PW-1) ignorning the fact that in the Court^they have retracted^from their version^and have been declared hostile.^That apart,^there is no evidence^{thatinthehousewheretheincident} is said to‘have occurred, there was no third person except the accused^{andthedeceasedorthatattherelevanttimetheaccused} was with^thedeceased. Further,^{theaxewasseizedfromanopen} is accessible^tooneand all and^therefore it cannot^be place^which linked with the commission of crime by the accused. Putting it differently, it is a case of no eVidence and being so the findings

¶43

¶44

recorded by the Court below convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC are not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶45

In the result, the appeai is allowed, judgment impugned is hereby set aside and the accused stands acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Since he is already on bail, no order to set him

¶46

free etc. is required to be passed.

¶47

Sdl-
_
Sd/“- Bajpai
i
l Chandra Qhushan
newfl’ritinker D1waker , <br>Judge ff
Judge

¶48

Jyotishi

Raju Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Suresh and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivraj Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/s Soni Construction Vs Commissioner, Customs And Central Excise Central Excise Building

Yogesh Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Asgari Khatoon Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhikhar and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh