Allowed

Sunita Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jan 2017CRA/726/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh acquitted an appellant of murder charges (302 IPC) and concealment of evidence (201 IPC). The court found the circumstantial evidence insufficient, noting a hostile witness and failure to establish the recovery of articles beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bonds discharged.

Sunita Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH^{COURTOFCHHATTlSGABHlBILASPQE}

¶3

CRA^No. Z26^gf2006

¶4

Fulsai^{Uraon,aged30years,Occupatio-Labour,} - Sunita^{Bai,wifeofLate} PS Gandhinagar, District resident o f village Sargawan, Caste-Uraon, Sarguia (CG) ---- Appellant Versus through ‘the Police Station Gandhinagar, - State Of Chhattisgarh, Ambikapur. ---- Respondent *k‘f f) jg ‘ ,gzggaf— Advocate under $ i r: Smt. Smriti^Shrivastava, For Appellant \ the^authority of Smt^Savita Tiwari,^Advocate for the^appellant. Shri^{N’K.Mehta,PanelLawyer.}

¶5

For Respondent

¶6

¶7

Hon'ble Shri^Justice Pritinker Diwaker Hon‘ble Shri^Justice Ra'endra Chandra Sin h Saman

‘^“. 1

Judgement

E er P.^Diwaker,J 1

12I01I2017

of conviction and order of

¶13

1. Challenge in this^appeal is to the jud gment by the Sessions Judg e, Sarguja

¶14

dated 10.7.2006 passed

¶15

sentence under

¶16

the accused/appellant

¶17

convicting

¶18

in S.T. No.503/04

¶19

(Ambikapur) 'the IPC')^and

¶20

Sections^302&201 of the Indian^PenalCode (for^short R.l.^{forLifean dfineofRs.100/-&} R.l. for 7

¶21

sentencing^himtoundergo years^{andfineofRs.100/-,withusualdefaultclauses,respectively.}

¶22

case name of deceased is Fulsai Uraon, husband of

¶23

ln the present

¶24

\ \‘accused/appellant. \‘he prosecution^{story.inbrief,isthatthedeceasedwasthefishermanand} in the^busines sof

¶25

his^wife i.e. present^{accused/appellant,wasengaged}

¶26

manufacturing & selling country—made Iiquor. Accused/appellant had development illicit relationship with acquitted accused Niranjan, who used to come to her house to have liquor. When this fact came to the notice of the deceased, he used to desist the accused/appellant from carrying on illicit relations. According to the prosecution case, the accused/appellant along with acquitted accused committed murder of the deceased and thereafter thrown his body in the Well situated near the house of one Virendra Yadav with intent to screen themselves from the legal punishment. On 19.8.2004 body of the deceased lying in the Well was u f noticed by Virendra_Yadav (PW-2) and thereafter the matter was reported to the police. Body was taken out from the Well. Merg intimation (EXP-5) was recorded. Inquest was prepared vide Ex.P—7. Body of deceased was sent for post—mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. F.N. Firdausi (PW-10) on 20.8.2004 vide Ex.P-21 who noticed following

¶27

INJUrleS;-

¶28

Lacerated wound obliquely placed over left side of left side of neck.

¶29

- incised wound over left side of abdomen (Anterior) parallel to midline of 15cm x full depth of abdomen, oval shape with intestine loops.

¶30

multiple incised wounds superficial present on abdomen.

¶31

in the opinion of autopsy surgeon, cause of death may be due to injuries over the body and the death was homicidal in nature. After the postmortem examination, the body of the deceased was buried with the permission^{oftheauthorityconcerned.} . When the deceased was found missing from the village, his brothers enquired^abouthimfrom the accused/appellant who informed them that he had: gone to collect Mushrooms. However, oncoming to know about the recovery of a dead body by the police from the newspaper, the

¶32

brothers of deceased visited the police station where they identified the body to be of the deceased on the basis of photograph shown to them by the police. Body of deceased was exhumed vide EXP-2 for preserving viscera and thereafter the body was handed over to his relatives for performing^last rites. - During interrogation, the accused/appellant made a disclosure statement (Ex.P-4) of knife used in commission of offence and accordingly the same was recovered at her instance from the brook vide Ex.P-18. One plastic bottle, blue‘icolour saree & peticoat were also recovered: at the instance of accused/appellant vide Ex.P—16 & P-17. On the basis of disclosure statement of acquitted accused, one blue colour jeans^andshirt were recovered vide seizure memo of EX.P-15.

¶33

On completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 & 201/34 was filed against the accused persons

¶34

and accordingly the charges were framed by the trial Judge against them. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused/appellant examined 12 witnesses in all. Statement of accused persons^wererecorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence & false implication.

¶35

. The trial Court after hearing the parties in the matter and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment while acquitting co-accused Niranjan of all the charges, convicted & sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above.

¶36

Counsel for accused/appellantsubmits that;

¶37

appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence but the nature of circumstantial evidence is not such which can be made basis for his conviction.

¶38

' Only circumstance against the appellant is the seizure of knife & clothes made at the instance of appellant but the witness of

¶39

r ‘

¶40

memorandum and seizure has not supported the prosecution case. - Seized bloodstained clothes & knife were examined by the Serolgoist but the biood group could not be deiermined and therefore it cannot be held that these articles have been used in commission of offence.

¶41

on the same set of evidence co-accused has already been acquitted of all the charges and therefore the appellant is also entitled for the same benefit.

¶42

¶43

On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment learned counsel for the State submits that conviction of accused/appellant is strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same £ warranting interference by this Court.

¶44

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the evidence available on record.

¶45

Dashai Kerketta (PW-1), brother of deceased, has stated that the“ deceased was missing for 2-3 days and upon enquiry, the accused/appellant informed that he had gone to collect Mushrooms. He has further stated that the deceased^{didnotreturnforsomanydays} and meanwhile he came to know that^{amalebodywasrecoveredby} the police from the Well situated at Godhanpur and therefore suspecting foul play he went to the police^{stationalongwith} photograph of deceased and there he identified^{thesaidbodytobeofthedeceased} on the basis of photograph shown^tohimbythe police. He has further stated that as the accused/appellant^washaving illicit relationship with acquitted accused which was not liked by the^{deceasedandtherefore} they have killed him. He is also a witness of inquest (EXP-2). There appears to be material contradictions in the statement^{ofthiswitnessas} compared to his diary statement.

¶46

¶47

Dhirendra (PW~2) is the first person who noticed the body of deceased lying in the well. Merg intimation (Ex.P—5) was recorded at the instance of this witness. He is also a witness of notice (EXP-6),^inquest (EXP-7), seizure memo EXP-10.

¶48

Arun Kumar Michael (PW-3)^is the witness^ofinquest (EXP-6).

¶49

Smt. Nirmala Kerketta (PW—4) is the wife of brother of deceased. She has stated that when the deceased was found missing, his whereabouts were enquired from’the accused/appellant^whoinformed thatiie had gone to collect Mushroom. She has further stated that on coming to know from the newspaper that one^{maledeadbodyhaving} the feamres of the deceased had been^{recoveredbythe} police^fromthe t

¶50

Well, they went to the police station where^{afterseeingtheunderwear} of the deceased they identified that^{bodytobeofthedeceased.}

¶51

Dr. B.S. Sengar (PW-5) is the person^who medically examined the“ acquitted accused.

¶52

¶53

Krishto Rai (PW-6) is the witness of memorandums (EXP-13^&P-14), seizure memos (EXP-15 to P-18)^{andarrestmemo} (EXP-19).

¶54

Miss Pratibha (PW-7) is the daughter of accused/appellant and the deceased, however, she has not stated^anything incriminating against the accused/appellant.

¶55

Devsai (PW-8) is the brother of^deceased. He is hear say witness.

¶56

18.Vishwanath Tiwari (PW-9) is the Patwari who prepared the spot^map (EXP-9).

¶57

Dr. F.H. Firdausi (PW—10) is the person^whoconducted post-mortem examination over the body of deceased and noticed the injuries as described above.

¶58

20.A.S; Narbadiya (PW—11) is the Investigating Officer and he has duly supported the prosecution^case.

¶59

Close scrutiny of the evidence available on record makes it clear that the circumstance i.e. recovery of articles at the instance of accused/appellant, relied upon by the prosecution to connect the accused/appellant with the crime in question has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. ln the present case, recoveries on the basis of alleged disclosure statements of accused/appellant were sought to be proved from the statements of Deenbandhu & Kristo Rai (PW-’6), as shown in the charge sheet, but, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, only Kristo Rai (PW-6) a f has been examined however, this witness has not supported the case of the prosecuti‘onand turned hostile. According to Kristo Rai (PW-6), 'by on being called the police, he went to the house of accused/ appellant where the police had obtained his signature on the memorandums & seizure memos, but neither memorandum statement has been recorded nor anything from the accused/appellant was seized: in his presence. ln such situation, the recoveries based on disclosure statement do not inspire confidence and it is not safe and proper to hold that the circumstance of recovery of above articles was established by the prosecution beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

¶60

True it is that in the FSL report blood stains were noticed on almost all the articles seized at the instance of accused/appellant and the same were also examined by the Serologist, but as per report of Serologist, human blood could not be detected on the knife & other articles except saree being insufficient for test or disintegrated. Mere presence of human blood in the saree seized at the instance of accused/appellant, which was not found to be of the blood group of the deceased and could be due to her mensuration period also, is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the offence like murder

¶61

¶62

particularly^whenthereis no satisfactory evidence to show that it is the accused/appeilant who had committed murder of deceased.

¶63

Likewise, there is nothing on record to show that after the death of the deceased the accused/appellant had in any manner caused disappearance of evidence of the offence with intent to screen herself from legal punishment and being so her conviction under Section 201 IPC is also not sustainable in the eye of law and she is entitled for acquittal of this offence also.

¶64

‘ r

¶65

. For the foregoing, the appeal succeeds. Conviction & sentence of the appétla'nt under Sections 302 & 201 IPC are hereby set aside and she is acquitted of'those charges by extending her benefit of doubt. Appellant is reported to be on bail. Her bail bonds stand discharged.

¶66

‘\‘_ l\‘ ‘RA, g.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

(Pritinker^Diwaker) Judge

¶69

Sd/—
(RCS Samant)
Judge

Sunita Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Bai 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

Umashanker Singh Vs Upendra Singh and Ors.

Dharam Sheela Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Horilal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nilmani Paikra Vs Basant Yadav

Ranuram Kavasi and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kailash Kumari Rajwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and another