High Court acquitted appellants of murder conviction set aside below. Court held prosecution circumstantial evidence was incomplete and doubtful. Lack of eyewitness and defective recovery chain necessitated benefit of doubt for appellants.
Impugned judgment of conviction set aside; appellants acquitted and granted liberty.
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.
1
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 130 of 2014
Both R/o village Prem Nagar, Pathalgaon, Police Station - Pathalgaon, District (Revenue and Civil) - Jashpur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Adv. For Respondent/State: Shri Subhash Yadav, Dy. G.A.
D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava & Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment On Board
20.06.2019 Per Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J
2
appellants have been held guilty of commission of offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced as described below:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| Section 302/34 IPC | Life Imprisonment with fine of |
| Rs.2,000/- (In default, 01 year | |
| R.I.) |
3
by the appellants and that the conduct of the appellants was also blameworthy as they had not reported the matter in the police station, and it was at the instance of the village Kotwar, a report was made in the police station. Though, the appellants came out with the plea of innocence in their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denying incriminating circumstances led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court, relied upon the circumstantial evidence, to hold that it is the appellants who had committed murder of the deceased and sentenced as described above in para 1 of this judgment.
4
and club recovered from the house were found to be stained with human blood, which the appellants have failed to explain and that even the clothes of one of the appellant Somati Ekka (A-1) was found to be stained with blood, who also failed to explain and further the conduct of the appellants that they did not lodge the report, it is only village Kotwar who lodged the report, all pointed towards the guilt of the appellants and formed complete chain of circumstantial evidence to draw an inference that, in all probability, it is the appellants and the appellants alone, who must have killed the deceased.
5
the appellants was found stained with human blood.
Pradeep Kumar Chouhan (PW/3), the FIR informant, has admitted in his cross-examination that the dead body of Balak Ram was lying by the side of road, which is public road used by all. The map (Ex.P/7) also shows that the place where the dead body was found, was just by the side of the house, but dead body was lying on an open place.
6
statement in their presence nor recovery of axe and club from the house of the appellants. The evidence of Investigating OfÏcer J.P. Singh (PW/10) is that he had taken memorandum of the two appellants and, based on their memoranda, an axe and club was taken out from the house of the appellants. But Kamlesh Sahu (PW/7) and Johani Bai (PW/8) do not support the statement. There is nothing in their statements to prove that the place from where the axe and club was taken out, was the house of the appellants. Kamlesh Sahu (PW/7), while denying that any memorandum statement was recorded in his presence, though, states that police had recovered a club, an axe and rope after showing him in his presence, he does not say where-from it was taken out. Whether it was taken out from the house or it was lying at the place of incident or it was in the police station, is not known. A suggestion that in his presence, the Investigating OfÏcer seized pink colour blouse of Somati Ekka (A-1) from her possession, has also been denied.
7
importance and unless there is clinching evidence that recovery of weapon said to be bloodstained was either recovered from a place disclosed by the accused or at-least from the house of the accused, the recovery, by itself, would not be an incriminating circumstance. It is quite doubtful as to the place where-from the recovery was made. It is only when there is clinching evidence that the club and the axe both were recovered from the house, irrespective of whether it was on the basis of disclosure statement or not, it could constitute an incriminating evidence.
8
is found established that failure on the part of the appellants to explain that how it was stained with human blood, in certain circumstances, may lead to an incriminating circumstance pointing towards the guilt of the appellants.
9
accordingly, do so.
Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge
vijay
3 issues framed by the court
Where prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence, did the evidence establish complete chain of circumstances with no reasonable doubt?
Was the recovery of weapon and bloodstained clothing linked to the appellants to rebut their defence of innocence?
Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants alone were guilty of the murder?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Somati Ekka
Kamal Ekka
State of Chhattisgarh
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
