Allowed

Arjun Das Manikpuri v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Mar 2022CRA/340/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this murder appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh analyzed discrepancies regarding the identification of the headless body and the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory report. The Court held the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence was virtually without value, constituting a case of no evidence, and consequently set aside the conviction and sentenced

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside. The appellant was acquitted and set at liberty forthwith.

Arjun Das Manikpuri Vs State of C.G. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2012

¶4

Arjun Das Manikpuri, son of Uttam Das Manikpuri, aged 50 years, resident of Kundrubari Chingrajpara, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶5

	---- Appellant versus
State of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh	through District Magistrate, District Bilaspur, --- Respondent
For Appellant	: Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent	: Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶6

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶7

Judgment on Board

¶8

Per Arvind Singh Chandel, J.

¶9

3.3.2022

¶10

The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.3.2012 passed by 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.184 of 2010, whereby the Appellant has been

¶11

convicted and sentenced as under:

¶12

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code	Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100 with default stipulation
Under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code	Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.100 with default stipulation
	Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently

¶13

¶14

Name of the deceased is Amit alias Bantha. According to the prosecution case, he was residing in the house of the Appellant on rent. There was a cordial relation between the deceased and the Appellant’s daughter. On 9.7.2010, a quarrel took place between the Appellant and the deceased. Thereafter, at about 5 a.m., the Appellant committed murder of the deceased by assaulting him with the help of a sabbal. After committing murder of the deceased, allegedly, the Appellant cut away the head and legs of the deceased with the help of an aari. He kept the dhad (headless body) with both hands in one gunny bag and the head and legs in other gunny bag and threw both the gunny bags in Arpa River. On 11.7.2010, the headless body of the deceased was found on road. Unnumbered morgue (Ex.P21) was registered. Inquest proceeding (Ex.P13) of the dead body was conducted. Post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted by PW3 Dr. C.S. Uike. Post mortem report is Ex.P7. Identification of the dead body was done vide Ex.P18 by mother and sister of the deceased, namely, PW12 Amrotin and PW13 Kavita, respectively. During the course of investigation, on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P1) of the Appellant, 1 wood cutting aari, 1 iron sabbal, 1 iron cutting aari and 1 lady bicycle were seized vide Ex.P2. Plain soil, blood stained soil, blood stained cotton and 1 gorsi made of soil were also seized vide Ex.P3. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. The Trial Court framed charges against him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

¶15

¶16

In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness was examined in his defence.

¶17

On completion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶18

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that without there being sufficient evidence on record against the Appellant, the Trial Court has wrongly convicted him. Virtually, it is a case of no evidence. Conviction imposed by the Trial Court is based upon the statement of PW2 Laxman Yadav. According to the prosecution, he is the witness who last saw the Appellant and the deceased together in the fateful night, but, this witness, in his crossexamination, has admitted the fact that when and where he saw the Appellant is not known to him. Therefore, the last seen together theory is gone. It is further argued that though the dead body, which was actually a dhad (headless body) only, was identified by PW12 Amrotin and PW13 Kavita, this identification itself is doubtful because as stated by both these witnesses, in the right hand of the deceased word Mamta was written by tattoo, but in the left hand of the dead body which was sent for post mortem examination a sign of heart was made by tattoo and letters AL were written there and another tattoo was made on the chest of the dead body in which word Lali was written. Therefore, it is not established that the dead body was of Amit alias Bantha itself. It is further argued that though

¶19

¶20

at the instance of the Appellant, on the basis of his disclosure statement (Ex.P1), 1 wood cutting aari, 1 iron sabbal, 1 iron cutting aari and 1 lady bicycle were seized vide Ex.P2, no report of examination of these articles by the Forensic Science Laboratory is available on record. Therefore, the prosecution does not get help even from recovery of the blood stained soil and blood stained cotton.

¶21

Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the above submission and supports the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

¶22

We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the statements of the witnesses and other evidence available on record with due care.

¶23

It is not in dispute that the recovered dead body was only a dhad (headless body). Head and legs of the recovered dead body were not found. It is also not in dispute that homicidal death of the person was caused whose dhad (headless body) was found.

¶24

First question that arises for consideration is whether the recovered dead body was of Amit alias Bantha.

¶25

According to the post mortem report (Ex.P7) and statement of PW3 Dr. C.S. Uike, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body, a sign of heart was made by tattoo on the left hand of the dead body and letters AL were also written there. Another

¶26

¶27

tattoo was made on the chest in which word Lali was written. The dhad (headless body) was identified by PW12 Amrotin and PW13 Kavita, mother and sister of the deceased, respectively. According to their statements, they had identified the dead body by seeing photo on mobile phone. Both the witnesses have deposed that the deceased had got word Mamta written on his hand by tattoo. But, the word Mamta was not written by tattoo in the hand of the recovered dead body. Rather, a sign of heart was made in the left hand of the recovered dead body and letters AL were written there and word Lali was written in the chest by tattoo. Therefore, it is highly suspicious that the dhad (headless body) which was recovered was of Amit alias Bantha.

¶28

The Trial Court has relied the statement of PW2 Laxman Yadav. He deposed that at 9:30 p.m. he had seen the deceased at the house of the Appellant, but, in paragraph 10 of his cross-examination, he admitted that he could not state that when and where he saw the deceased. Therefore, it is also not established that this witness had last seen the deceased and the Appellant together.

¶29

During the course of investigation, on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P1) of the Appellant, 1 wood cutting aari, 1 iron sabbal, 1 iron cutting aari and 1 lady bicycle were seized vide Ex.P2. 1 cotton piece which was used for mopping the blood spread in one room of the house of the Appellant, blood stained soil, plain soil and 1 plastic bottle stained with blood were seized vide Ex.P3. On perusal of Ex.P29, it appears that some articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical

¶30

¶31

examination, but, the prosecution has failed to submit any FSL report in this regard for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, it is not established that blood stains, particularly of human blood, were present on the articles and weapons seized from the place of occurrence and from the possession of the Appellant.

¶32

On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that there is no eyewitness in this case. The prosecution has also failed to prove that PW2 Laxman Yadav is the person who last saw the Appellant and the deceased together. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the articles and weapons seized from the possession of the Appellant and from the place of occurrence had any connection with the crime in question. Moreover, the recovered dead body was of Amit alias Bantha is also suspicious. Looking to the entire evidence, in our considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Virtually, this case is of no evidence. Thus, the finding of the Trial Court is not in accordance with the evidence available on record. The conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable.

¶33

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith.

¶34

Sd/-	Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge	(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶35

Gopal

Arjun Das Manikpuri v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Das Manikpuri v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Investigation Agency Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Horilal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Vastrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh, Vs Sanjay Kumar Chauhan

Shivprasad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh